BHX ATC - Slightly weird

[Mentaleena]

Mon 20th March '06 15:30pm.

MCT to CHASE.

Female controller at BHX "Good afternoon XXX, vectors for 33 number 2".

Got to CHASE, no vectors given, no sign of #1 so I say: "Should we just fly towards base leg for 33???"

Female controller: "Strictly speaking you should have taken up the hold at CHASE"

That was well out of order. She was busy on the phone regarding some traffic at EMA. She didn't say "Clearance Limit Chase". She did say "Vectors for 33 #2 in traffic."

Why should I have to go into the hold, wasting time and company fuel when the controller says "Vectors 33"?

She was out of order, but I didn't take up the challenge at the time.

Any comments BHX?

[radar707]

What was your clearance limit from the previous sector, i.e were you on a STAR which terminates at CHASE? If so the your clearnce limit was CHASE and you would be expected to take up the hold. Despite the controller telling you that it will be vectors for 33, until she actually gave you a heading to fly, then you continue with the clearance already issued to you, i.e to CHASE.

You could have always called the tower after landing and asked to speak to the controller concerned and discuss your thoughts on the matter.

Alternatively you could perhaps visit the tower and see what goes on. Unfortunately despite you not hearing or seeing any other aircraft, doesn't mean the controller isn't busy.

Probably the best way to deal with it would have been to ask "Confirm you wish us to hold at CHASE", a gentle and polite reminder that you are there and reaching your clearance limit.

There is a website that EGBB controllers can be contacted through, you can visit it at:

http://www.egbb.co.uk/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi

You'll probably be able to get a better answer from an EGBB controller, maybe even the controller concerned.

[rolaaand]

I believe it is you who is out of order. If you take a look at any uk airport arrival chart it states in bold letters "do not proceed beyond ....... without ATC clearance". I have seen this before with pilots flying straight through the hold while on own navigation with the excuse that no-one told them to hold. If you were on a heading then you continue it. If you are on own navigation to wherever-Chase,Bovingdon,Tweed,Rosun-then you take up the hold if no further clearance is given,no questions. The controller here simply told you which type of approach you would get,but did not give you any instructions to proceed beyond Chase.She's right, you're wrong.Sorry.

[squidge]

Hi!
I was the controller in question. I would just like to put you in the picture with the traffic scenario. It was not busy but i had just recieved a call from an aircraft who was about to enter East Midlands airspace without permission and i considered it good TRM to call the radar controller there to warn him that this aircraft was about to infringe rather than leave it as a total surprise to him and have an airprox.
I'm sorry that coincided with the exact time you arrived at CHS and i didn't vector you. All you needed to do was remind me, which you did. All I was doing was reminding you what you should have done - i did actually give you a heading straight away which positioned you in traffic with no holding at all!!
BTW No 1 was coming in from the south which is perhaps why you had no sign of him.:mad:
Radar and rolaaand - thanx for backing me up guys. It was actually my last day at BHX and in NATS as i am moving on to pastures new.
Anyone else at BHX care to comment?
Other than that - Arrivederci!!!:{

[longarm]

Seems simple to me. Heading to Chase told to expect vectors. No vectors given - therefore hold at Chase.

[viva77]

Mentaleena
Given some of the controllers at Brum I think your admonishment was quite gentle and you should consider yourself lucky to have had the pleasure of being handled by squidge. :D

[Mentaleena]

squidge

Good luck to you anyway.

The rest of you don't be so "pouncy" and so overcorrect.
Put yourselves where I was for a minute.
There was no reason to take up the hold, we knew she was a bit busy on the phone and that we will be given a heading. We just got there before she gave us one!
I understand that when the controller says "Vectors to xx" I am under his/her headings. No more navigating to do. If I don't get a heading I ask for one, which is what I did near enough.
But - I don't expect to hold at all!!!
So please revise your procedures, as I am certain all my colleagues would think the same. We are in your hands as soon as you say Vectors!

radar707 - It was irrelevant what the MAN controller said at this time, as we were now with BHX!

[Gonzo]

I think radar707 was asking whether the Manch controller had put you on a heading, or were you on own nav?

I believe I recall correctly, that on first contact with an inbound aircraft, an approach radar unit will give the type of approach (In my training it was either; "ABCxxx, vectoring ILS approach runway 26" or "ABCxxx, vectoring SRA approach runway 26"). This is not a new clearance. As has been said above, if I hadn't given you a heading to fly, then I'd expect you to enter the hold at the fix you were flying towards.

There was no reason to take up the hold

With all due respect, how would you know if that was the case?

[ukatco_535]

Mentaleena

There was no reason to take up the hold,


we knew she was a bit busy on the phone and that we will be given a heading.

Bloody hell, I know some pilots use TCAS in the wrong manner, but could you deduce the above from it, or some other piece of airborne equipment?

Go on, tell us you were actually flying an AWACs or AEW aircraft, then I will understand your reasoning (though it will still be wrong for a whole load of reasons)!

How do you know there was no reason to take up the hold. Did you consider the fact that the runway inspection vehicle had broken down on the runway? Or that a herd of wilderbeasts were rampaging across the threshold? The Controller just had a heart attack???

There are a multitude of reasons that you may have had to hold - to state the above just shows ignorance to what actually happens in and around an airfield.

As the others have stated, unless you are on a vector already, you will hold unless told otherwise.

If you have to hold because the controller concerned is on the phone to another controller, preventing a possible Airprox then that is tough. If it delays you slightly and causes all the other knock on effects that has (extra fuel etc), again tough.

Believe it or not, our aim as controllers is to get rid of you ASAP so that we can reduce our workload in anticipation of the next A/C that will call. We will not hold you for the hell of it.

But - I don't expect to hold at all!!!

What, ever?


We are in your hands as soon as you say Vectors!

Wrong you are in controlled airspace, you are in our hands even if we allow you to fly on your own navigation. The only time you are not in our hands is if in your opinion you think that your A/C is in danger. And you had better be able able to back that up with hard evidence if you try to go and do your own thing.

So please revise your procedures, as I am certain all my colleagues would think the same.

Au contraire my friend, I think you had best revise your practices. You are wrong, no ifs or buts, just plain fact.

finally:

She was out of order, but I didn't take up the challenge at the time.

Probably the most arrogant statement I have heard for a long time, if not ever. I suppose it's a damned cheek that she was not in the kitchen where women should be, eh??

[nodelay]

ukatco_535. Very well said.

[cambioso]

The question has to be asked though........If this a/c was only No.2 in the sequence and you were landing 33 (i.e. 40+ track miles to landing 33), why was the aircraft not given a "heading off" Chase on first contact??
This might have left you time to do your TRM AND keep the traffic moving!!

Good luck "Up The Road" K !!

[radar707]

Mentaleena, it's our job to be pouncy and over correct, because when you give an incorrect readback or not do something you are told to do, then your safety and the safety of your passengers is potentially compromised.

Our job is to keep you safe in the skies, your job is to fly the aircraft and do what you are told to do UNLESS YOU FEEL YOUR SAFETY WOULD BE COMPROMISED.

Your clearance limit from MACC would have been CHASE therefore until squidge issued an instruction to you to "Turn left/right heading xxx! or "Fly Heading xxx" or "Continue on present heading" you are not being vectored and your clearance is to CHASE and ONLY TO CHASE.

Being told you will be vectored for an ILS to 33 is not vectoring you, it is informing you that you WILL receive radar vectors and not have to fly the procedure.

[ukatco_535]

Cambioso

A fair point, however squidge may have been intending to give a vector before the hold, and was just waiting for the opportune moment (again could be for a multitude of reasons), but then had to deal with the infringer.

[Empty Cruise]

This very simple test will show if we pilots understand your intentions. I was first subjected to it by MAN ctrl - and it still creases me up :D

a/c: "Manch Control, abc123 to WAL, descending FL110"
atc: "Goodevening abc123, to WAL, descend FL80"
a/c: "To WAL, descend FL80, abc123"
atc: "abc123, a quick question? We are conducting a poll among our users today - if I cleared you direct to MIRSI but issued no further instructions, what would you do at MIRSI"?
a/c: "Take up the hold?"
atc: "Very good, abc123, you get 10 out of 10"
a/c: "Thank you"
atc: "abc 123, you're welcome - and now fly dct MIRSI" :ok:

Even though we're not cleared the STAR - it's not rocket sciense, is it? Although that being said, a few weeks ago in GVA, when we couldn't get a word in edgewise and hadn't been cleared the transition, we reached DINIG and turned for the hold - that got us all of His Atco-ness' attention :{ :rolleyes: :E

Empty

[vapourer]

I think Mentaleena has a good point. Yes in the absence of further clearance an aircraft must take up the hold. Nevertheless the MATS Pt 1 does say that "on commencement of radar vectoring to final approach the pilot is to be advised that the aircraft will be radar vectored to intercept the final approach and of the runway in use and the type of final approach". This is backed up by CAP 413 (RTF Manual). Therefore on hearing the phrase "vectors for 33 no. 2" the reasonable expectation is that this is what will happen. The fact that it did not happen for the very good reasons explained by Squidge should not have elicited the response about strictly speaking you should have taken up the hold. I think "sorry about that" would have been more appropriate.

[ukatco_535]

Vapourer

A valid point, however vectors had not been applied, so strictly speaking the pilot was not yet on a vectored approach, regardless of what the intentions were, he was on the STAR.

We only have the bare facts and the views from both parties to go on.

We do not know how the dialogue was conducted without having recourse to the tapes.

Given the phrasing of the posts by Mentaleena and the perceived attitude in them I wonder if his R/T when asking the controller was in a similar fashion i.e. condescending, self righteous and abrupt (especially when he says he knows the controller was busy on the phone)?

If his posts are anything to go by, then he would have come across as an arrogant and rude person. I think in that circumstance I would have given the same reply.

We do not even know the tone that the controller replied in, she may have genuinely believed it was a question and she may have replied quite civilly that normally you would take up the hold, with the thought in her mind that she was going to add, "but in this case turn L/R heading... " etc.

On the other side of the coin, she may have snapped the answer at him and this is what made him get his back up.

This is all conjecture.

However considering Mentaleena had 18 hours between when he says the incident happened and when he posted his original post, his attitude still comes across as aggressive and arrogant.

I could understand such an attitude if it had just happened and the controller had been rude to him, however for him still to display these traits 18 hours after a minor incident says to me that no matter what happened, he would be arrogant enough to never admit he was out of order or to accept the other persons point of view.

As your profile states you are a Crown Court worker you probably know the difference between pre-meditated and 'heat of the moment' actions. Mentaleenas post is no different - it is certainly not heat of the moment. If he was still angry about it after 18hrs then he needs some anger management therapy.

Also, if as he himself states, he knows the controller was busy, surely even basic airmanship would tell him to keep quiet and fly in accordance with the laid down procedures - they are there for a reason.

Shame he seems to have disappeared from his own thread.

[BOBBLEHAT]

Whilst technically this chap should have held, he has my full sympathy. Being told vectors for 33 then being forced into asking what to do regarding the hold is no biggy is it? It has an ambiguity about it. Give him a break.

[rolaaand]

[QUOTE=BOBBLEHAT]Whilst technically this chap should have held, he has my full sympathy.


Technically? Now that is ambiguous. As I said before the Chase arrival chart states "do not proceed beyond chase without ATC clearance". Clear and concise. If you're on own nav chase and you don't get any further instructions,take up the hold. It surprises me that as an ATCO you have any sympathy with this guy whatsoever. Consider this-an aircraft climbing to 6000 on a SID busts the altitude and climbs through. The pilots excuse is that the frequency wasn't busy so there was no reason to stop at 6000! Despite the fact that it states on the chart "do not climb obve 6000 unless authorised by ATC. Would you have sympathy then?

[foghorn]

Having seen both sides of aviation training, as an ATCO and to CPL/IR, I don't think that the whole concept of clearance limits and why they exist is stressed enough during pilot training: it certainly wasn't during mine.

Unfortunately that means that there are many pilots out there think like Mentaleena. Either they don't realise the existance of a clearance limit in the first place, or they think that if a clearance limit is reached without a new clearance being issued, then it's OK to either continue with the FP or continue with what the controller must be expecting (assuming that the radio is working).

That scares the willies out of me as an ATCO.

[ukatco_535]

Bobblehat wrote

Being told vectors for 33 then being forced into asking what to do regarding the hold is no biggy is it?

You hit the nail on the head there - it was no biggy, so why does Mentaleena come onto the forum displaying an attitude like he has?

If he was less aggressive in his stance and merely posed the question I think you will find he would have had a more sympathetic response.

It has an ambiguity about it.

Which by inference means that Mentaleena or the ATCO could have been in the wrong. Therefore why support him and thereby condone his attitude when he says things such as

That was well out of order

She was out of order, but I didn't take up the challenge at the time

The rest of you don't be so "pouncy" and so overcorrect.

So please revise your procedures.

Those qoutes and his posts show an ignorance of ATC procedures as well as an arrogance.

[Mentaleena]

ukatco_535 (particularly),

I did not intend this to be a slagging match and certainly have not expected to be analysed by some atco as to what type of a person I might or might not be.
Stick to your atco facts and no further. I have not attempted nor am I interested in discribing your possible character (although it does sound a bit defensive/angry) on these pages so wind your neck in.

I read with some relief that there may be a small group of people understanding my dilemma, thank you to those.

[ukatco_535]

Mentaleena

Welcome back. Not defensive, certainly not angry just telling it as it is - you are the one who sounds like they are on a tirade.

Stick to your atco facts

At least you acknowledge that what I and the other ATCOs are saying is fact.

As I said in a previous post, if you had come onto the forum asking in a civil manner instead of straight away saying the controller was wrong, you will have got a more reasoned response, although the facts regarding flying procedures would still be the same.

It may well have been the case that the ATCO was wrong, but there are ways of going about things.

From your first post

That was well out of order.

She was out of order, but I didn't take up the challenge at the time

And from your second post


The rest of you don't be so "pouncy" and so overcorrect.

So please revise your procedures

Not exactly the best way of endearing yourself to anyone.

The controller concerned may have (rightly or wrongly) taken the manner you said

"Should we just fly towards base leg for 33???"

as condescending - along the lines of "do we have to do everything ourselves?".

If she did find it condescending she may have replied as she did as a quick retort to 'put you back in your place' (unprofessional, but we are all human)

We as ATCOs are here to help you, the pilots, conduct a safe, efficient and orderly flight. You have to do that for one aircraft, we have to do it for many. I think the majority here were trying to let you know that if you hear nothing else, you follow standard procedures.

No statement of intentions such as

Good afternoon XXX, vectors for 33 number 2

overrides that fact.

As a little bit of people management, why did you not say something along the lines of "XYZ approaching the CHASE hold".

This would serve as a gentle reminder (we do sometimes momentarily forget A/C are doing particular things though in this instance it does not seem to have been the case) and the controller would then have either issued a heading or told you to standby or even enter the hold.

If you had been told to enter the hold so that the controller could sort out the wandering aircraft problem it would not have been ideal for either you nor the controller especially as there would have been no traffic reason. However it would have been safe - the first aim in both your and an ATCOs profession.

[Mentaleena]

ukatco_535

As a little bit of people management, why did you not say something along the lines of "XYZ approaching the CHASE hold".

Because I genuinely thought that once ATC say "vectors" it means just that!
I've been flying for 16 years commercially and this has only just come up. In other words whenever I was told "vectors" in the past I have never had to do anything else but follow ATC from there on. That's what I think most of my colleagues think too! Training has never encompassed things like these for us. So it's not clear, in fact it's outright misleading if "vectors" means go and hold perhaps!

I did say to squidge as a reminder "should we fly towards base leg?" and we knew there was no one else there to affect immediately.

So to summarise, ATC procedures are not taught to pilots like ATC think. We often learn from each other as we "grow up". This was one of those days, when after 16 years something I thought was white, is in fact black!

Mentaleena :cool:

[Gary Lager]

So hopefully you now acknowledge what '535' has been saying has been a very reasoned and correct response to your initial complaint?

None of us ever stop learning, many people pay lip-service to that statement but it really is true. You've learnt a bit about ATC procedures, and our ATCO colleagues here have learnt that not every pilot in their airspace necessarily has the same understanding of those procedures as they.

Some suggestions from a fellow commercial pilot:

1) Don't assert that just because you thought it was so, that the rest of your colleagues think that way too! Some of us strive to maintain our IFR flying standards!

2) Take some of your time off to visit your local ATC unit, not just for 5 mins up the tower, but (if you can arrange it) a whole morning/afternoon shift - you will see first-hand so many of the situations which appear inexplicable from the other side of the R/T, and gain a better understanding of the airspace in which you operate and enhanced Situational Awareness next time you fly.

3) see 2). So important that I mentioned it twice. I really, really recommend it.

4) Talk to your company about offering familiarisation flights to local ATCOs - my company does, and they have a 'Tiny' BHX base - perhaps we are colleagues? If so, PM and I can explain how to arrange it. Also very useful.

Hopefully something positive can result from what appears to have been initially a negative experience for you.

All the best,

GL

[mbcxharm]

Gary has basically got in ahead of me there and said exactly what I was going to say. As a holder of a JAA ATPL I have a personal responsibility to maintain my own recurrent knowledge of all those things I studied for my ATPL exams - which certainly included a lot of information about ATC procedures.

Many other pilots I meet, however, have some large gaps in their understanding of how things work, covering a large spectrum from fuel planning requirements, to ATC related issues - such as the different services provided in the differing classes of airspace.

[ukatco_535]

Probably the most sensible comment in the whole thread

Gary Lager wrote

None of us ever stop learning, many people pay lip-service to that statement but it really is true

That applies to everyone me, Mentaleena, all the pilots ATCOs and everybody else.

One of the best ways to learn is to find out other peoples pesrpective - which is a great benefit of Pprune. Having the humility to ask questions in a manner that willnot be construed as aggresive or accusatory will always result in a more satisfactory response. :ok:

[TATC]

ukatco_535
Because I genuinely thought that once ATC say "vectors" it means just that!
I've been flying for 16 years commercially and this has only just come up. In other words whenever I was told "vectors" in the past I have never had to do anything else but follow ATC from there on.


In all the other cases you have been told 'vectors' were you already on a geading from a previous sector, did the transmition that included "Vectors for an .... approach runway XY" include a heading to fly, or immediately followed by an instruction to fly a heading.

As stated previously you cannot be under vectors until one has been issued. During my training i used the phrase "continue towards XYZ, vectors ILS approach runway XY". In no circumstance did a pilot fly past a hold or query that he was to take up the hold. No heading was issued so the aircraft was not subject to Radar Vectors.

[two pints]

Anyone who flies in and out of Brum on a regular or irregular basis please take the time to have a look at our ATC website (address above), its monitored frequently and has dedicated forums for discussing these sorts of issues,


Also download from it our operators briefing pack - designed to be read by you pilots and help you understand in plain language what we do and why it has to be done that way - hopefully a better understanding can be achieved through methods like this.

And please come over to the tower for a visit - we are a friendly bunch as many of you will already know. We ATCO's often take fam flights with you guys to learn from you so let us return the favour!!!
Hope to see you soon!!!:ok:

ps - all the best K, we'll miss you!!xx

[brain fade]

ukatco. What's the worst thing that can 'appen to you then? Spill your coffee?:)

[ukatco_535]

Brain Fade

I assume that that comment was a little tongue in cheek!?!!

However it is our job to (help) stop you guys from having an incident (in the ONE aircraft that has at least 2 people controlling it) with any of the many others that one of us happen to be controlling at the same time.

It is a team effort – but yes, we do know that in an emergency situation, you are the one with it all to lose.

Having flown for the military in a genuine high workload cockpit and environment with none of the fancy aids available to commercial airliners I do know, in the main, what you guys do.


Unfortunately I am not allowed to drink coffee on console, unlike airline pilots.

Airline pilots who do not know and/or choose not to follow basic rules are the ones who are likely to spill their coffee at the very least, due to that fact that the chances are their lack of professionalism will have caused the incident they find themselves in!!