Fudging ETA's in procedural airspace.

[silverknapper]

My company flies Turboprops, primarily in the Scottish Highlands. Recently we have all noticed a certain TP operator also operating in Scotland becoming increasingly guilty of fudging it's ETA's, obviously in order to become number 1 in the procedure, hence avoiding the hold. Usually the truth becomes clear when the aircraft in question mysteriously gets to the overhead two or three minutes later than broadcast. We have a chuckle to ourselves, laugh at the prats who think this is necessary and get on with our day.
Last night however we came across a real prat. We checked in first. Having given our ETA to the overhead he checked in with an ETA 4 minutes before us. We thought this sounded off given his range and the prevailing wind. Sure enough once he was descended below us he came back with ' we have a new ETA'. Lo and behold it was two minutes after us. Already below us, we then had to slow right back.
Aside from the obvious issue of lying to ATC, and holding us up drastically, there is also the issue we thought he was four minutes ahead of us already in the procedure so were flying the normal profile speeds.
It isn't an isolated 'mistake'. It happens frequently. This operator has FMS. If we can give accurate ETA's without it I'm sure they can with a combination of all their resources available to them. I have also heard Captains with them laugh it off saying, and I quote "it's all part of the game".
So my question is, what can be done to address this? Surely it must annoy controllers as much if not more than us?
Any comments gratefully received.

[PPRuNe Radar]

You could start giving ETAs which are 3 or 4 minutes ahead of your own schedule for a while to see if you can beat them at their own game ?? ;)

[rodan]

So my question is, what can be done to address this? Surely it must annoy controllers as much if not more than us?
Any comments gratefully received.
You can bet that the ATCO's have noticed this as well, we tend to notice when we're being lied to, especially on a regular basis by the same voices. Your grain of comfort should be that in the long run, this will probably backfire on that particular operator who will face greater delays due to always being number 2 because ATC can't trust them anymore. At least, I hope that's the outcome. Any HIAL atco's care to comment?

[bigmanatc]

Nothing irritates me more than this.....if you lie you go to the back of the queue.....and its easy to figure who`s fibbing.....we can calculate too you know.

[Hooligan Bill]

Never encountered this when I worked in that part of the world, Scottish with their radar did a good job of determining the correct order and issuing releases to us as appropriate.
The trick I came across was the operator, that, when realising they would not be number one, would just pitch up at the MSA with a freecall. This could be at the best irritating and at worst damn right dangerous if you already had two or three in the hold/on the procedure. They would either be told to join VFR or essential traffic info would be issued and the a/c instructed to hold in a position at least five minutes flying time from the hold (not ideal in Class G airspace). Despite this, they would persist in trying it on.

[055166k]

silverknapper
Put factual detail in your voyage report and send to your chief pilot for onward transmission to CAA.
Advise ATC that you intend to ask for an R/T transcript for the period[s] in question.....tell ATC which freq[s] involved; this can be done discreetly by land-line or personal visit: it will also enable ATC at the relevant unit to impound any "flight progress strips". In addition to this it is possible to run impounded radar recordings from various sources even though the unit from which you were receiving a service does not provide radar.
[ This is quite normal for any incident....and not a problem]
Start a diary of these events to establish a pattern and to identify whether or not your suspicions are well founded. You could end up saving lives....this is no joking matter.....!
I haven't done procedural at H&I for some years, but I would certainly be concerned about this if I was still up there.

[Highland Director]

When I first trained in Approach procedural, aircraft always arrived overhead the beacon at exactly the time they said they would. (Wonderful things ATC simulators).

Then of course, I entered the real world where the difference between the estimate and the actual arrival time can easily be 12-15mins on a relatively short hop.

Now I don't mean to point fingers of accusation at anyone here; these are purely my observations. The estimates which I receive as a procedural ATCO are in reality not pilot estimates but ATC software predictions. They are unreliable at best and at worst down-right dangerous. For this reason, it is vital to obtain an updated estimate from the pilot once the a/c is on frequency. There is always the question of honesty of course, particularly when you are in a non-radar environment. T'was ever thus.

...............................but radar is coming to the frozen North. :ok:

[bigmanatc]

Ah bollocks...........GPS has spoiled them all....they all say...."give you estimate top of climb" ................sheesh when I learned to fly I had to calculate those estimates.....I have no respect for a pilot who says this to me.......

[Spitoon]

silver, I'm not doubting what you said but a quick (but obvious) question comes to mind - were you both approaching from the same direction?

As to 055166k's answer, yes this is normal procedure but normally only after an incident or a pilot report of something untoward - I'm not sure that a pilot coul successfully ask for transcripts or hear a tape without something more formal. It might be better to channel your concerns through Chief Pilot and CAA Flight Ops Inspector who can make the formal request.

Sadly, in Class G airspace it's hard to pin something like this down but in a procedural environment trying to play the system in this way can be downright dangerous!

[silverknapper]

Spitoon

We were coming from different directions. We were from the south, he was from the west.
The ETA given was from the Pilot, established in the cruise and ready for a descent. I personally don't doubt he gave a deliberately misleading ETA. As I say it isn't an isolated incident up here with this airline.
This is an interesting discussion though - would a CHIRP report do anything about this? Do controllers log this sort of event?

Cheers

SK

[A I]

This practice sounds pretty dangerous.

A CHIRP report sounds like a good route to me. In my experience these are taken pretty seriously by NATS and the circumstances will be fully investigated.

On another tack- what's this about Scottish radar improvements?

A I

[Lifes2good]

"You could start giving ETAs which are 3 or 4 minutes ahead of your own schedule for a while to see if you can beat them at their own game ??"
I hope this was said tongue in cheek otherwise everyone is going to get rather hacked off!!!! I hope everyone can be professional about this and realise the error of their ways. ( I know pilots from the airlines in question read this forum regularly!!!). The controller in the procedural environment is at times at the mercy of the pilot estimate. This can however be remedied to a degree by asking certain crews their range etc and a quick calculation should confirm the reasonable accuracy (or not???) of the estimate. Granted again in the Procedural environment it can by then be a bit late in changing the order. So come on everyone lets try and play the game fairly and correctly.