Radio Discipline

[Late Landing]

I have mulled over whether or not I should address this issue on this forum, but after last night's shift it needs to be said.

Why is it that in this part of the world radio discipline is so poor?
As a controller I find it incredible that I have to call an aircraft 3 and 4 times to get their attention. An observation here is that the more automated the aircraft, or the higher up the foodchain the operator is, the less likely the pilot is to answer on the first call!

I cannot believe that this disrespect (for that is what it is) is shown by pilots at the other end of the flight - in Europe or the States - yet it seems to be very prevalent in the Middle East. I've heard excuses, for example, it is at the end of a 12 hour flight etc, but it happens on outbound flights as well.
I know that sometimes ATC radios might not be the best, but surely professionalism dictates that as a pilot you should be more vigilant at such times.

So guys let's work together - listen out.
Rant over.

[AirTaxiDriver]

Maybe because the guys are just tired, after a 5 days shift, a 12hours or mini rest at the base after a long night turn around... and starting again...
Missing calls when we are tired is so easy! at the beginning or at the end of a flight!

[JAARule]

You're right. This is a common exchange:


ATC: "EK 123, turn right heading 150."


ATC: "EK 123, turn right heading 150."


ATC: "EK 123, turn right heading 150."


ATC: "EK 123, UAE/Bahrain/Baghdad???"


Pilot: "EK 123, go ahead."


Two nights ago it was someone 'super' with a really cool sounding drawl coming back from Munich, reading back clearances like, "Three one zero six zero." It sounded so cool.


RT standards here are woeful and yet we have people defending the standard of recent joiners in the pay review thread and others. Mind you some of the defenders are trainers who teach them and sign them off so make of it what you will.

[Woody12]

This is also applicable to ATC as well.

How many times i ve heard saying things without a name.

"03 in use , 1024"

"1024 what????"
"03 what????"

And many other examples.

[TheDarkHorse]

Personally I find the U.S R.T the most effective and efficient way of radio.

[FFFrentit]

A common practise by DXB GND:

"Emirates 123" (with no further info)

Should normally be responded to with:

"Station calling Emirates 123 on 118.75, go ahead with call sign"

Takes up valuable frequency time as the controller has to make a proper call to the required aircraft.

[Thridle Op Des]

I sadly agree with ATC on this, last night I heard the poor UAE guy say in an almost resigned way "level passing?" And this is home base traffic. Even my 'other half' did the same so I became one of the 'crew of shame' (we had a discussion) but it pains me to micromanage things like call sign read back and standard radio calls.

[Desdihold]

I will add to what FFf said, after being told to told to contact ground by dlv I normally say "emirates 123" only to be responded to with a "with a Pass your message" response from a whining oz (female) controller.
They should know that ek 123 is at stand b21 and by contacting them we are requesting up push and start.
Controllers please wake up!

[CAYNINE]

ATC do a good job here boys and girls, it is a serious lack of discipline and professionalism to be constantly missing radio calls. Do you think a crew would get away with missing several calls in say the London or JFK terminal area? Then why the complacency and lack of effort in DXB?

The radio clarity and accent in DXB is not an excuse.

14 hour flight..... how far is LAX, do you behave the same in the LAX terminal area??? probably not.

There is varying standards in all departments whether ATCO's or pilots but for God's sake do we have to have "comin down", "with a flash", "12 point 3 for 7" sounds good in Texas but pleeeeeze!

Are these the same "cool cats" that whine on here and in the ASR summaries each week???

Just too cool for school and know it all..... ah to be so talented as the few

[maggot]

The radio clarity and accent in DXB is not an excuse.

the clarity over the bubin fix seems a bit dodgy at times actually... or is it just me?

[JAARule]

ATC do a great job here but then they clear you to cross 30L or line up on 30R, expecting you to make it quick, but leave the freaking red lights ON???? Every time! Expeditious movement is expected of us but this red light thing is not rocket science. Please ATC switch off the red lights on time as this nanny airline won't allow the pilot to start building up momentum on a 300 ton aircraft until the light is out.


I find the U.S R.T the most effective and efficient way of radio.


Amusing. I've even heard US ATCOs pulling their hair out at their own pilots not using callsigns, not reading back clearances properly and it has to be repeated, etc. Why do they have to include instructions in the ATIS teaching pilots that the callsign must be used if US RT is so good?

[go46ball]

No, they're pulling their hair out every time EK does a PDC read back that clearly says no need for a read back.

[jack schidt]

The attitude of some controllers throughout the Gulf can at times be rather agressive I must admit. However, I also agree that the standard of RT and the lack of RT discipline by some aircraft operating in the Gulf can also be beyond limits of minimum acceptable. I am sorry to have to say that some of the most non-standard RT does come from a few of the North Americans. They read back partial instructions without even using their callsign, unacceptable.

I will admit that I make mistakes on the radio but I try to be standard at all times. It is poor professionalism when either end of the radio offer anything but "standard" phraseology in an acceptable manner. There is a hidden anger and frustration behind some people on the radio and a little more patience and effort to be professional should be considered when going to work.

With many mixed nationalities in the vast majority of middle east cockpits, they do not speak fluent English lvl 6. However, it is not all the cockpits problems as there are controllers from the Netherlands who are not always the easiest to understand, Australians who seem to have zero tolerance as well as some female European controllers. When operating in the M/E a few people seem to talk on the radio like the way they drive thier SUVs (it's all about me attitude).

I will say that there is tiredness and there is fatigue and both ARE on either end of the microphone, we have to over come our issues and deal with it and remain professional and make standard calls. I am not writing this for any other reason but for those who read it to be standard and have respect to make all our time on the airwaves safe and easier.

[TransitCheck]

Communication is Communication. If you are from OZ you have a certain set of "standard RT", if you are from the UK you have a certain set of "standard RT", and so on and so on.

Come to Emirates and you have every dominant ego tripping nationality who thinks that there way of speaking on the radio is the ONLY way. Look at the CCI pages for US destinations and most other English speaking destinations outside of the UK and Australia, all of them say "nonstandard RT". What gives you the right to come here and dictate your standard RT manual on the rest of us? When I came here I had never heard of flight level two hundred. It was flight level two zero zero but because I have some comprehension of the English language I can understand what is being said and don't try to correct those who were trained to say things that way. Also, I have never heard of "charlie charlie" which seems to be used here a lot also.

Question for the ATC folks.

Do you prefer when guys call you with "emirates 123, good morning" and then wait for you to reply for them to pass their message

OR

Since you are sitting there monitoring the radio and that is one of your primary jobs, do you just prefer for an aircraft to call and pass the full message upon first call up.

[CAYNINE]

Magg, I do agree with you that there is a weak spot at BUBIN specially when your in the turn to commence outbound leg in the hold.

[Late Landing]

I work airspace north of the UAE so what goes on with OMDB GMC, or the BUBIN hold, doesn't hassle me and those are procedures / issues for Dubai to work through.
Also my issue is not whether the phraseologies are correct, or whether FAA phraseology is better than the ICAO version. Although these may be valid discussion point, both those arguments pre-suppose the pilot has actually answered the ATC.

I am referring to the lack of active listening out / monitoring the frequency. The numerous calls just to elicit a response, and then generally the readback is incorrect.
Heaven help if one day we have to give someone avoiding action in the form of an immediate turn...

[The Turtle]

PDC Readback........don't get me started !!


WTF good is a PDC if you must call and read it back


No rants on controllers, but those who issue a clearance, then we read back, then issue another clearance, and we read back, and sometimes a THIRD....c'mon, really?? just give me my level, heading, and clearance limit all in one statement.....I can figure it out.

[falconeasydriver]

PDC Readback........don't get me started !!


WTF good is a PDC if you must call and read it back



Maaaaaate, back en straylia, you ARE REQUIRED to read back a PDC :E and it should be no diiiiferent nywhere else!

Seriously for a short second....I agree with the previous posters, shocking shocking RT discipline, barely a 2 in my book (it's a small book).
But then today EK 521, 531, 571, 621, all on frequency taking each other's calls due to the controllers poor use of his boom mike....and accent dear I say it, even I had trouble picking up what he was saying (with a completely different flight number)

[FlyingTinCans]

Yes pilot RT can be poor, the "PDC received" and not giving your aircraft type to approach are my 2 pet hates.

However being told to "line up and be ready immediate" then forgetting to put the stop bars down happens all too often and requires an unnecessary RT call from us.

[The Turtle]

Yeah Mate, I get it.


You're missing my point entirely. :ugh:

[scandistralian]

Falcon Maaaattteeee, I hope your not taking the piss. Turtle; readback of a PDC is mandatory worldwide unless advised otherwise. DCL's however, are text only exchanges, nothing to do with the country, rather the format, refer OMC 3.2.2

On the topic of communications in Dubai;

1) Know the meaning of the instruction "Monitor"
2) On initial departure contact only call sign and altitude passing are required, on arrival the same as above with the addition of aircraft type (why do people announce the ATIS received?)
3) ATC; time to publish a note stating that all aircraft contacting DXB DIRECTOR should use Callsign only, so the poor controller doesn't have to keep issuing the instruction. Also maybe it'd be an idea to include the departure frequency with the clearance and specify an altitude to switch automatically to departures, that should help clear some congestion on tower?

[AirTaxiDriver]

FAA: see point 2/d/
[URL="http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim0502.html"]

5-2-2. Pre-departure Clearance Procedures

a. Many airports in the National Airspace System are equipped with the Tower Data Link System (TDLS) that includes the Pre-departure Clearance (PDC) function. The PDC function automates the Clearance Delivery operations in the ATCT for participating users. The PDC function displays IFR clearances from the ARTCC to the ATCT. The Clearance Delivery controller in the ATCT can append local departure information and transmit the clearance via data link to participating airline/service provider computers. The airline/service provider will then deliver the clearance via the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) or a similar data link system or, for nondata link equipped aircraft, via a printer located at the departure gate. PDC reduces frequency congestion, controller workload and is intended to mitigate delivery/readback errors. Also, information from participating users indicates a reduction in pilot workload.

b. PDC is available only to participating aircraft that have subscribed to the service through an approved service provider.

c. Due to technical reasons, the following limitations currently exist in the PDC program:

1. Aircraft filing multiple flight plans are limited to one PDC clearance per departure airport within a 24-hour period. Additional clearances will be delivered verbally.

2. If the clearance is revised or modified prior to delivery, it will be rejected from PDC and the clearance will need to be delivered verbally.

d. No acknowledgment of receipt or readback is required for a PDC.

e. In all situations, the pilot is encouraged to contact clearance delivery if a question or concern exists regarding an automated clearance.



Then Australian:
ENR 1.1-5 paras 3.24 - 3.24.8 detail

PDC READBACK
After you get your PDC via ACARS the pilot is free to contact DEL (if it exists) or GND (if it doesn't) when ready to do so. The aircraft must read back the SID (and assigned transition if there is one), assigned runway, STAR (if given), any conditional requirements, squawk, and current parking stand. If done on GND it must be done prior to requesting push or taxi.
QF1 => Sydney Clearance Delivery, QF1, PDC Readback

DEL => QF1, Sydney Delivery

QF1=> DEL, RWY 34L RICHMOND2 DEP, RIC trans, 3324, Bay 31

DEL => QF1

The readback of the call sign by ATC is acknowledgement that the readback of the PDC is correct, this is all the pilot needs to be able to proceed. In the above example the aircraft could now call GND and ask for further clearances as per normal, there is no need to be told to call GND, you just do it. Note that assigned altitude is not one of the things that has to be read back.

[falconeasydriver]

Scandi...calm down cobber, you WILL note in my post that I did indeed make reference to the PDC procedure as laid down in our truely awesome manuals, it was a sarcastic play on the Ozzie predilection for believing their own BS, but it was a reference none the less, apologies for not being clear.

I agree with your points 1-2-3, but there is always the exception..."DXB app EK XXX 77W passing 8500"
"EK XXX confirm you have Hotel QNH 1002?"
"Affirm we've got hotel, 1002"

Thats one more call than there need be IMHO.

[AirTaxiDriver]

Pilot: Dubai Center, EK123 Heavy passing FL200 descending 10000 feet QNH 1002, Boeing 77W (or "Super" - Airbus 388), speed 300 kts, radar heading 260.

ATC: EK123 good day, say again passing level?

............


Everyone's making mistake, everyone's missing calls...

[Laker]

Caynine,

I have to call bullish#t on your post. In 18 years of flying, much of it in North America, I have never heard a pilot say "comin' down" or "in a flash(wtf?)." Not even in Texas. For the most part NA pilots adapt to EK RT quite quick as stated by a controller on this thread.

What I find amusing is that the people who are so hung up on RT discipline generally stuff it up each and every time they fly to a US destination.

A few examples.

-You ARE NOT EXPECTED to report "established ILS XX." You are just adding to radio congestion when you make that unnecessary call! Particularly in extremely busy environments such as NY. They can tell you are established. Wonder how it would go over with Dubai approach if you gave them souls on board each time you checked in or what you had for dinner?

-On your first contact with a ground controller you are expected to let them know you have the current ATIS. in my experience most EK crews will miss that call or they will give it to Ramp who couldn't care less.

-A positive handover to the tower frequency while taxiing out for departure is not SOP in the US. Passing the last intersection you are expected to switch to Tower Frequency. I've noticed ground controllers just tell EK to switch to Tower because we miss that so often. Notice you don't hear ground telling Alaska or United to switch to tower.

-"Fully Ready." You are ready for pushback or you are not ready for pushback. "Fully Ready" is not a call that's made in NA.

-"Heavy" is used on the initial call to a center frequency and every call to Approach, Tower, and ground.

- At stations like Seattle where the PDC says "read back not required" read back is not required.

But this isn't rocket science and IMHO there is no need to get wrapped around the axle. If you are going to make RT your hot button issue then you stand to benefit from using proper RT in the US as well. Can't we all get along? :ok:

[Guy D'ageradar]

My 2p

[QUOTE] the clarity over the bubin fix seems a bit dodgy at times actually... or is it just me? /QUOTE]

Not nearly as bad as the "Desdi triangle" - not really the spot where you need a radio black hole...

[QUOTE] Personally I find the US RT the most effective and efficient way of radio. /QUOTE]

Just because you can't be bothered doing things properly doesn't mean the rest of us will follow your lead!

[QUOTE] You ARE NOT EXPECTED to report "established ILS XX." You are just adding to radio congestion when you make that unnecessary call! Particularly in extremely busy environments such as NY /QUOTE]

Maybe so in NY but in Dubai (and much of the rest of the world), we are REQUIRED to ascertain that you are established before transfer to the tower. Any doubts as to why, just ask a Swiss(air) pilot. :ugh: The fact that certain individuals don't bother to do so doesn't change the requirement. :=

As to attitudes, we do try but after the twentieth Air Arabia in a row asks for everything but the kitchen sink and/or each and every flight to/from the sub-continent insists on confirming each and every transmission it does become a bit wearing..... methinks they wouldn't make the same requests in other, busy, complex TMAs, so why here? :uhoh:

[Guy D'ageradar]

My 2p

the clarity over the bubin fix seems a bit dodgy at times actually... or is it just me?

Not nearly as bad as the "Desdi triangle" - not really the spot where you need a radio black hole...

Personally I find the US RT the most effective and efficient way of radio.

Just because you can't be bothered doing things properly doesn't mean the rest of us will follow your lead!

You ARE NOT EXPECTED to report "established ILS XX." You are just adding to radio congestion when you make that unnecessary call! Particularly in extremely busy environments such as NY

Maybe so in NY but in Dubai (and much of the rest of the world), we are REQUIRED to ascertain that you are established before transfer to the tower. Any doubts as to why, just ask a Swiss(air) pilot. :ugh: The fact that certain individuals don't bother to do so doesn't change the requirement. :=

As to attitudes, we do try but after the twentieth Air Arabia in a row asks for everything but the kitchen sink and/or each and every flight to/from the sub-continent insists on confirming each and every transmission it does become a bit wearing..... methinks they wouldn't make the same requests in other, busy, complex TMAs, so why here? :uhoh:

[Laker]

Guy D'ageradar,

That's the point i'm trying to make! You are expected to follow the rules for the current area of operations. So when you are in Dubai or London for example you would call "established." Yet when you are in the USA you ARE NOT SUPPOSED to call "established." You are just tying up a busy frequency.

I don't think you realize your hypocrisy You seem to imply that it's ok to disregard the local rules because in the EU/Dubai that call is necessary. When flying into SEA, IAH, DFW, BOS, etc you are expected to follow the local rules.

I will direct you to your own statement "Just because you can't be bothered doing things properly doesn't mean the rest of us will follow your lead!" Take your own advice. When I'm in Dubai I follow proper comm procedures for Dubai and likewise for the US. Apparently you just do what you think is right.

So next time you fly to the USA do it PROPERLY! Most americans won't give you a hard time for screwing it up because they understand you don't have years of operating in that arena. But if you want to beat the RT drum then you might as well start practicing proper RT.

[HarryDunne]

EK related Pprune posts, where there are three different themes:

1. Australians are better than Americans (countries are changeable)
2. 777 is better than the 380 (aircraft are changeable)
3. We are professionals and deserve more money

Ladies and gentleman, until we stop squabbling like children over points 1 & 2, we won't get anyone to believe point 3.

Harry

[Laker]

I agree 100% with Harry. The inferiority complex runs deep with certain individuals. I think the vast majority of pilots across all nationalities just want to finish the flight and go relax with a beer. It's not that hard. :ugh:

[Guy D'ageradar]

Take your own advice. When I'm in Dubai I follow proper comm procedures for Dubai and likewise for the US. Apparently you just do what you think is right.

Apologies if I was unclear - I am a Dubai ATCO - not much chance you'll find me flying around the Eastern Seaboard!

You seem to imply that it's ok to disregard the local rules because in the EU/Dubai that call is necessary.

No, I only work here so I adhere to the local requirements. Having worked in several very different countries, I can assure you that they are anything but standardised.

Apparently you just do what you think is right.

See above. As anyone who has worked in this part of the world for a significant period would confirm, I do what I am required to do by the local authorities and often more, as required by my own conscience.

[Guy D'ageradar]

Harry,

Agreed, although I think we could find a much larger number of xenophobic examples!

Laker - your round ? :E

[Laker]

Guy,

Where did I say anything xenophobic? I have no idea as to your nationality and I don't care. My post was directed at individuals (not nationalities) who slag others for procedure mistakes yet are totally unaware that they are operating against local procedures when flying to US destinations. There are a small but vocal group at EK (pilots) who get on their soap box but then operate outside the norm when in NA. Either you follow proper RT everywhere or you don't have good RT. Personally I could care less but I find the general hypocrisy within EK amusing.

[fliion]

Laker...spot on.

f.

[Guy D'ageradar]

Laker,

I was referring to point one of Harry's post - the intention was light-hearted and not intended as a personal slight to him or to you. Lighten up and have one of these beers :ok:

As to the individuals you talk of, they exist in both ATC and the cockpit - here and elsewhere - all we can do is set a good example.....

[ekwhistleblower]

I reckon most missed calls are from not wearing a headset, I now do for just that reason

[Desert Driver]

Not listening out
On the land line
Having a rant and loosing patience or temper
Throwing toys out of the cot and telling everyone to standby
Sitting in an ivory ( control ) tower
Now having lit the blue touch paper lets actually get together to sort this crap out.
SATCO ATCO CAPT and FOs all users why don't we contact our managers and get an open face to face forum. Please no more "we make the rules you follow them." If the procedures are not being followed then it may be that they either don't work or are impractical so why not get all interested parties involved in the process, or we could keep throwing accusations at each other. As previous said it works in other areas of the world why not here. Lets cooperate.
Rant over, but I am awaiting some emotional retribution.
DD

[Left Coaster]

Here's one that gets my vote:

"FULLY READY"

It's correctly stated as "READY" (for start or pushback or for takeoff etc)

READY is ready…period…why call when only partly ready? Don't get me going on the RT out there! Joined an airway over Turkey that continues over Iraq and into the Gulf last time up, and was surrounded by all three carriers from that region. By the time we got to top of descent I had a headache from the poor RT from ALL parties! Missed calls, incorrect read backs, challenges from crews to clearances (they didn't like ordered speed reductions and altitude changes to keep traffic moving) Impatient controllers…if it wasn't so embarrassing to the industry, it would have been funny. Sadly the levels of ICAO RT and language qualifications don't take into account where a pilot learns his RT…and despite the various carriers in the Gulf attempts to standardize this, it's a FAIL in my book!

Back to my morning coffee...

[Oldaircrew]

My favourite is: " descend to FL---, RoD 1000'/min"

[speedbirdhopeful1]

My favourite is: " descend to FL---, RoD 1000'/min"

Or the poor Irish chap who has to give each 1000ft clearance in the hold followed by "level in a minute"

[Mach_Krit]

I love the colleagues that give u the evil eye for wanting to use the speedbrake to comply with speed clearances. Nah matttee, just use 500fpm....and wait 5 minutes for the trend vector to appear:ugh: there come the extra miles....:ugh:

[AirTaxiDriver]

Why 500fpm? there's no such rules, except in the USA, Australia and the UK in the last 1500 ft....
You can take 100fpm if you wish!

[CAYNINE]

I like what Guy said. :ok:

[springbok449]

The minimum 1000fpm thingie used to be in the UAE AIP, I don't know know if it's still in there though...

[lospilotos]

1000 ft/min? Tell that to the guys levelling off trying to catch up with the VNAV profile on approach...

Just for my benefit, what's so wrong with informing Delivery that you have "PDC received"?

[fatbus]

I see the children are at it again.

[Tight Seat]

Not time for a forum, just time for an informal at the Irish Village. Get to know each other and realise we are all on the same side.

Misunderstanding is ok as long as we all learn from it. No blame on each party just a new partnership to make good .

I think that as an EK pilot , having a good relationship with our partners in ATC is paramount.

[Oldaircrew]

Min RoD for ICAO is 1000'/min. Under vectors or in the terminal area I believe that 500'/min is the min. So there is no need for the "level in a minute" or RoD of 1000'/min. It is just a waste of airtime.

[pilotday]

ATC is just doing their job, separating tin.

ATC says level in one minute because our wonderful Pro-Company Austro-naughts don't know or follow the rules, but think they do while creating issues with ATC separation. Not smart to create your own continuous descent approach when one does not exist or cleared.

It's sad when checkers grade down a candidate for leveling off before GS interception instead of using -100fpm to intercept.

AAAIRMANSHiP MATE, save the company money.

Every time you hear an ATC instruction to increase ROD, it means some guy is making the arrivals pear shaped with his AAAIRMANSHIP.

[Oldaircrew]

Pilot day, i agree with you but couldnt they just NOTAM it to re-acquaint us with the rule instead of wasting airtime?

[scandistralian]

any more zingers from the anti-Austronaut brigade or can we get back on topic?

[Outatowner]

pilotday, you poor little petal, so much anger and rage. Did some big nasty ozzie give you a hard time once upon a time, and you've been harbouring it all these years? Didn't mummy give you a hug? It must've been terrible alone in your room after the dressing down, crying hot tears of rage and humiliation, knowing Bruce was laughing it up over a beer down at the bar with the girls.

Having once been made to feel small by an ozzie for your woeful RT and lack of SOPs is no reason to always look for a chance to make them all pay for ever after. Try to get over it and not to be such a little bitch. No one likes a little bitch.

Here's one for you, pilotday... hopefully it'll lift your spirits in your damaged little heart!

My2FRPA3Gf8

[Emma Royds]

Sadly R/T procedures and etiquette is something that is not taken seriously in the Gulf as a whole and if I dare say it, it applies top down from both sides of the fence.

For example, callsign confusion is not taken seriously by the operators and the regulators don't seem to have much drive to keep the number of words that we all say, down to a minimum.

The Gulf is perhaps home to some of the worst examples of R/T that I have heard across the globe and that applies to both ATC and Pilots. In making that statement, I am discounting the pilots and controllers around the world whose command of English is basic. For example, some nationalities are not known for their great command of the English language but the same cannot be said for all of us that live and work in the Gulf, as English is often the primary language of communication both in and in many cases, out of the workplace too.

Most of the examples of poor R/T in this part of the world, generally come from people whose command of English is to a good standard but what lacks is self disipline. Unless those people in lofty position above us sit up and realise that this is a issue, then this is a situation that will only go from bad to worse.

As for my EK peers, can we perhaps stop quoting the PDC clearance number on the Delivery frequency at DXB or that we are going to destination XXX etc. The controller knows if we have accepted our PDC (or not) and where we are going to so why tell him/her something that they know? The one word they are wanting to hear is 'Ready'! :ok:

[Daniel Bernoulli]

Pilot Day.
Airmanship has nothing to do with saving money....

[maggot]

poor troll

[AirTaxiDriver]

Oldaircrew: "Min RoD for ICAO is 1000'/min. Under vectors or in the terminal area I believe that 500'/min is the min. So there is no need for the "level in a minute" or RoD of 1000'/min. It is just a waste of airtime."

NO, NO, and NO! it is a myth, mini 500 ft ONLY in the USA, Australia and UK (last 1500ft/mn),
It means you can take 100 ftm if you want!

[Alconguin Crusader]

Hear Hear Pink.
Couldn't agree more.

[BYMONEK]

You STILL here Mr. A C ? Thought you'd left years ago......

The irony of your post is obviously lost on you completely. Or is that what you call 'American humour'?

[Alconguin Crusader]

Yes I am and we all know you will be here for a long time Bymonek.
What legacy airline did you leave? Yeah we know you never could get hired by one.

[Dropp the Pilot]

Blackadder: "Baldrick, you have no concept of the meaning of irony"

Baldrick: "Yeah, I do! It's like 'goldy' or 'bronzy' only its made out of iron"

[pilotday]

Getting Austro-naughts in a tizzy is so easy and fun. I don't know why I find so much entertainment in it. Maybe EK isn't working me hard enough and I have too much time on my hands.

Thank you Daniel Bernoulli, saving the company money is not the definition of AAAIRMANSHIP, I know. Not sure if you interpreted my bit of sarcasm. Taking extra risk with no reward is insane

ie. taking less fuel than OFP to make the mission work.

[donpizmeov]

Pilotday,


Less looking at blokes nipples and a bit more work with that OMA. 8.3.0.8.8.1:)


The don


PS. In the hold you need to get down as you are vertically separated only. On the arrival, you will not get lower than 8000' until over the departure traffic, and are distance separated. But what does this have to do with not listening out on the radio?

[falconeasydriver]

Getting Austro-naughts in a tizzy is so easy and fun. I don't know why I find so much entertainment in it. Maybe EK isn't working me hard enough and I have too much time on my hands.

Best way to wind them up is to ask them if they know why the boomerang was invented there…..:E

Sorry Don, couldn't resist.. :)

[asteroid02]

Meanwhile, can the Emirates guys please STFU on 121.5.......its not been allocated for your general chat.

[cerbus]

Whose chat room is it asteroid?
Again you know what pprune is about? Deal with it!

[Tight Seat]

More ass or is it his roids?

[Desert Dawg]

@Chai-Wallah

I once heard Iran on 121.5 asking an "unidentified aircraft flying at FL600" to identify itself... Maybe something military at that altitude...?

[Plazbot]

That chap in Iran does get quite irate. I did enjoy him telling an unknown aircraft that he 'won't act responsibly towards them'

Just a couple of weeks ago a couple of ladies were chatting away with many protests from other stations for them to stfu. One of the gals was obviously not the sharpest and during the exchange was given a freq change on the area freq but responded on 121.5 instead identifying the company too all. Not EK btw.

[Rule3]

That aircraft at FL600 and umpteen other Military aircraft operate EVERY day in international waters in the Gulf. Have done for a decade or more.:rolleyes:

[Stage5]

Here is a novel idea. Take a brief read of CAAP 69.

GCAA CAAP 69 R/T (http://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/ePublication/_layouts/GCAA/ePublication/DownloadFile.aspx?Un=/en/epublication/admin/Library%20Pdf/Civil%20Aviation%20Advisory%20Publication%20(CAAP)/CAAP%2069%20UAE%20RADIOTELEPHONY%20STANDARDS.pdf)

[El Peligroso]

This is SO SAD... :(

What happened to Pilots & ATCs getting together for a regular p!ss-up? We all knew each other and next day, direct to wherever you wanted at high speed.

[CAYNINE]

Ahhh, such is the new generation of pilots, don't give a sh@t about anyone. :p

[latetonite]

To Airtaxidriver:

I do not think your effort will be appreciated by ATC. Even at 500 ft/min, your level is staying occupied too long. Common sense obviously left the scene again.

[AirTaxiDriver]

Is there any common sens to be at 8000ft 120nm away? or your talking about YOUR common sens?

Am using mini V/S till reaching my flight path... unless being ask by the controller to increase the rate of descent.

Are you afraid about the CDA practice? (less noise, less fuel burnt, more efficient...)

[HighLow]

Hey all,
cool the jets here for a second, back to BASICS !!
and to all those trigger happy posters out there, I am NOT trying to teach people to suck eggs here BUT:
(and to be fair to the pilot who is trying to achieve an efficient CDA)
lets talk about what is legal and what is allowed!

--------------------
PUT VERY SIMPLY !!!
--------------------
* in a busy TMA in the HOLD ! min ROD 1000fpm is what is expected, SIMPLE !

* in a busy TMA (or any TMA for that matter) and on the published STAR

Pilot MUST:
Point 1. adhere to all Speed and Vertical constraints on the Arrival
Pilot CAN
Point 2. fly min rate of descent 500 fpm is allowed as long as Point 1 is satisfied in full

NOTES:

* If you doubt Point 2, check ICAO regulations !
(ALSO: if one is too lazy to check, then you just have to trust me on point 2) (Of course, mature professional feedback welcome, but please to avoid massive drift; no pilot technique comments plz - we are talking about the legality of pilot descending at minimum 500fpm in a TMA, when flying a CDA)
AS LONG AS POINT 1 IS SATISFIED, POINT 2 is ALLOWED !

* If the ATC controller (who no doubt is extremely busy in a TMA like Dubai) is hassling a pilot for not descending quick enough; EITHER
1) Give the Pilot a specified ROD
Also on vectors with no specified ROD, the pilot can descend at 500fpm should he/she wish !
2) Query the Design of the Published Arrival
So long as the pilot is STILL adhering to ALL of the constraints of the STAR, the pilots job is done ! it is the design of the STAR at fault and not the pilot or ATC controller !

If the airport wishes a plane to be right downwind at 3000aal , so bit it, PUBLISH IT,

i will say it again.....

If the airport wishes a plane to be right downwind at 3000aal , so bit it, PUBLISH IT,



Otherwise, the pilots can descend how he/she likes (of course as long as it is safe)
notwithstanding any specific request from the ATC controller
(500fpm minimum ROD IS allowed and perfectly legal !!)


And to those skippers who use the FO like an Autopilot !
If as a Captain, you are uncomfortable turning base at 4,500 aal approx at an airport at Sea Level in ISA conditions, well thats not the First Officers issue, ok, you might fly it differently, but perhaps consider the following:
the FO might be well experienced in this regard and have NO issue with this configuration and profile. Granted if its getting silly and way high on approach, intervene, but let the FO please fly the aircraft!!!

I might be just pissing into the wind, but a reminder of the legal requirements as mentioned above, might be useful to this debate !

[latetonite]

To Airtaxidriver:

Aircraft separation is the prerogative of ATC, and has nothing to do with your CDA, FMC or fuel conservation. Although it would be nice to have those things match up, it is not guaranteed. Get your priorities straight.

You are probably one of the gentlemen asking for descent, an upon getting clearance, just delay the descent until your magic TOD point arrives.

[AirTaxiDriver]

@ latetonite: sorry, I am not requesting descent until i need to descend!
Aircraft separation as you mention is the ATC's prerogative, until they do not give me a mini ROD to follow, I take my own...

@HighLow
Where did you get those min ROD from? ICAO? you should maybe read those text, there is no such minimum existing, and except FAA, Australia and UK (last 1500ft)...
Trusting you? right, give the reference of text your naming...
In the other states, you are allowed to use 100ftm till the ATC ask you another rate for their separation.
So if you would like to remind about the legal requirement, you should at least know them...

[HighLow]

AirTaxiDriver,
consider the following remarks:
* 500fpm is the LEGAL minimum rate of descent,
* 500fpm rate of descent is "perfectly legal" (assuming one is adhering to all vertical and speed constraints published on an Arrival)

QUESTION: can you spot the difference between these two remarks?

I was discussing what is legal, YES, but I did not mention that 500feet per minute is the LEGAL minimum; there is a BIG difference.

I referred in my last post to check ICAO regulations as to whether 500fpm is allowed or not; there is no mention in ICAO Doc 8168 of any minimum, therefore IT IS allowed; maybe you misunderstood what I was saying, or I did not make my point as clearly as I could have, anyways;


@AirTaxiDriver
By all means, if you want to descend at 100fpm , off you go ! fill your boots!

Consider the following however;

Initial Descent to the Airport
you are certainly not making any friends with your fellow pilots dawdling at -100fpm, whilst others are commencing their initial descent to an airport, and there you are blocking ALL the levels, and creating headaches for the all concerned, pilots and controllers.

and as mentioned by another poster:
a pilot requests descent, controller gives clearance
pilot descends, EASY

instead of (what seems an increasing occurance of) whereby
a pilot requests descent, controller gives descent clearance
pilot waits another 20 miles before starting down....
(EM NO ! you are supposed to start down once you receive the clearance.
AND you guys and girls know who you are, so stop this ridiculous practice).

DESCEND WHEN READY... in that case stay up there at your cruising level till the HOLD I don't care, but if a controller gives u a descent clearance, DESCEND !!

Holding
@AirTaxiDriver, you mention "in other states, you are allowed to use 100ftm till the ATC ask you another rate for their separation." really? good luck with that one ! the controller will not be ASKING (as you put it) for another rate, he will be DEMANDING another rate (at least 1000fpm)

You see, that is the expectation from your fellow professionals;
rather than wait until prompted, give the controller what he/she expects..
frees up the frequency too! 1 call instead of 2 (an added bonus)

Vectors (Downwind / Base / Final)
From having a chat with Approach controllers over the years, I understand there is an expectation that a pilot would descend at least 500fpm when been vectored, (once out of any holding pattern) and also (for sure I am open to correction on this one), 300fpm is acceptable below 6000ft aal.

@AirTaxiDriver your "100ftm" as you put it, I dont think would really win you any friends here ! but hey.... you wait for controller to give you a new rate...

[AirTaxiDriver]

@ HighLow:
I agree, I have misread your comment, and I thought you were saying the mini legal is 500fpm, as a lot of pilots think it is...

Initial Descent to the Airport
you are certainly not making any friends with your fellow pilots dawdling at -100fpm, whilst others are commencing their initial descent to an airport, and there you are blocking ALL the levels, and creating headaches for the all concerned, pilots and controllers.

If my initial decent is given 50 NM away from my TOD, I do use 100 fpm, IF the ATC call me back to increase, I do, but most of the time they don't, they just want me to leave this level for a 1000 ft separation with an incoming traffic...
DO NOT create law or expectations that doesn't exist, if the ATC want you at a minimum ROD, he will tell you... so why not managing your descent?

and as mentioned by another poster:
a pilot requests descent, controller gives clearance
pilot descends, EASY

Agree, that doesn't mean with a mini given rate...

instead of (what seems an increasing occurance of) whereby
a pilot requests descent, controller gives descent clearance
pilot waits another 20 miles before starting down....
(EM NO ! you are supposed to start down once you receive the clearance.
AND you guys and girls know who you are, so stop this ridiculous practice).

Agin, I agree!

DESCEND WHEN READY... in that case stay up there at your cruising level till the HOLD I don't care, but if a controller gives u a descent clearance, DESCEND !!


Again, I agree, i have never said the opposite, this is a rule!

Holding
@AirTaxiDriver, you mention "in other states, you are allowed to use 100ftm till the ATC ask you another rate for their separation." really? good luck with that one ! the controller will not be ASKING (as you put it) for another rate, he will be DEMANDING another rate (at least 1000fpm)


WRONG, as there is no such rule for minimum ROD (except US, Australia and UK (last 1500ft)), ATC is not expecting you at a mini 1000 or 500 fpm or else, I have used many, many, many times 100fpm to descend if I am far from my TOD, they barely question me. Times to times in Italie to pass over the traffic into France, or to Switzerland, or in Germany they pass you a clearance to descent with a mini ROD... other than that... no problem at all! Should you try!?

You see, that is the expectation from your fellow professionals;
rather than wait until prompted, give the controller what he/she expects..
frees up the frequency too! 1 call instead of 2 (an added bonus)

He expects nothing, as there is no rules... again, do not create rules that doesn't exist...

Vectors (Downwind / Base / Final)
From having a chat with Approach controllers over the years, I understand there is an expectation that a pilot would descend at least 500fpm when been vectored, (once out of any holding pattern) and also (for sure I am open to correction on this one), 300fpm is acceptable below 6000ft aal.

First time ever I can read that!!!
Where it is written a controller is expecting you to descent at 500fpm, 400fpm, 300fpm? why not 675fpm as per a controller at 6am, and 425fpm as per another one at 6pm...

If they want you to take a mini ROD, they will tell you.
Or it will be either:
- written in an AIP as per a local rule, shown in an AOI,
- written in the local regulation text (e.g.: FAR) reflected in the LIDO GEN...

Why do you want people to expect you doing something not written, this is stupid, one controller would expect you to descent at one rate, where another would expect you to descent at double this rate...

Stop creating rules and expectations that do not exist for god sake!

[Jihad Jim]

Airmanship and not bickering is the way forward chaps. Your SA of other aircraft clearances as well as your own and ATC profile requirements/expectations should dictate the rates of descent. Particulalry at DXB where different styles abound.

To those on another thread who are arguing that they will fly a dive and drive as they wish as an act of defiance, not a CDA. Well good luck with that at 2000 feet behind a 380 on a CDA. First paragraph refers.

LIDO GEN COM s the companies reference for RT. Not any other. (local CAP notwithstanding).


An example of a local rule.
UK AIP:3.2.2.4 Minimum Rates of Climb and Descent
3.2.2.4.1 In order to ensure that controllers can accurately predict flight profiles to maintain standard vertical separation between aircraft,
pilots of aircraft commencing a climb or descent in accordance with an ATC Clearance should inform the controller if they
anticipate that their rate of climb or descent during the level change will be less than 500 ft per minute, or if at any time during
such a climb or descent their vertical speed is, in fact, less than 500 ft per minute.
3.2.2.4.2 This requirement applies to both the en-route phase of flight and to terminal holding above Transition Altitude.
Note: This is not a prohibition on the use of rates of climb or descent of less than 500 ft per minute where necessary to comply
with other operating requirements.

Further reading in AIP 1.7

Also from CDA guidance:
34.
A minimum rate of descent of 500 fpm is applicable for ATC
purposes for aircraft above the Transition Altitude following
STARs . Although this
requirement does not continue into the approach phase of
flight, some pilots have in the past continued to descend at a
higher rate than necessary. To avoid confusion the UK AIP now
clarifies that the 500 fpm minimum ROD requirement does not
apply below Transition Altitude.

And from the same guidance.:
‘Level flight’ is interpreted as any segment of flight having a
height change of not more than 50ft over a track distance of
2nm or more.

AN ICAO CDA includes 1.5 miles level flight, a UK one 2.5

Germany CRAR. Minumum ROD for CDA 300 fpm.

Now An example of Dubai expectation from the horses mouth. An extract from a meeting between us and them.

Minumum of 500fpm.

Speed +/_ 0Kts

Reduction 10kts / NM when being vectored.

I cant seem to insert the extract from the minutes here, but the speed control is now in the AIP if you care to look with the added caveat that non compliance will be reported to the authority. DL letter advised of this sometime in June 2011 I think.

There are too many Local variations to start a pissing contest. Fly according to where you are and whats required. Paragraph 1 refers.

[AirTaxiDriver]

I can't agree more!
But again, 500 fpm... is an expectation coming from nowhere! I'll call it a myth...
Why not writing it as per the speed control... so simple!

[falconeasydriver]

Now An example of Dubai expectation from the horses mouth. An extract from a meeting between us and them.

Minumum of 500fpm.

Speed +/_ 0Kts

Reduction 10kts / NM when being vectored.

I cant seem to insert the extract from the minutes here, but the speed control is now in the AIP if you care to look with the added caveat that non compliance will be reported to the authority. DL letter advised of this sometime in June 2011 I think.

Its a pity Jim, given that we can't seem to get a similar expectation of accuracy in terms of track miles.

[harry the cod]

"is an expectation coming from nowhere!"

Er, no, it's an expectation coming from ATC. Do you ever listen to other people? You must be a right bloody argumentative sod to fly with at times, especially drifting down at 100' per minute for your 1000' clearance. I'm sure the controller will love giving you those precious 10 minutes and 80+ miles.

'Watch out!, they cry, Air Taxi Drivers in the sky'

Harry

[AirTaxiDriver]

I have read...
I have read someone saying it... like a friend of mine told me that my cousin's sister...
Is there anything written as per their expectation?
They do expect a speed control, we know it now because they make it official, as simple as that!

Are you afraid of flying down (or up) at 100 fpm? is that so difficult?
If there is no ATC restrictions, why making things so difficult?

Make it the way you want, 2000fpm, 3000, 200, 100... all is authorised except very few states.
I am not saying I am doing "THE" right thing, I am saying it is legal to do it!

[Tight Seat]

To be honest, I take time to note where the other traffic is, anticipate what the controller wants. When given a minimum rate I apply it until needs are satisfied. It's just experience and a resolution rather than conflict mentality.

We can all quote text and regulations but the truth is common aviation sense.

I judge most Mid East ATC as very good, some adequate and others less so; not unlike the people I fly with. But the truth is that is the ikea set we have is non returnable and we have to work hard together to build it.

How about an effort by each side to improve?

[sleeve of wizard]

From NATS flight safety committee.

Minimum rate of climb or descent
In order to ensure that controllers can accurately predict flight profiles to maintain standard vertical separation between aircraft, pilots of aircraft commencing a climb or descent in accordance with an ATC Clearance should inform the controller if they anticipate that their rate of climb or descent during the level change will be less than 500 ft per minute, or if at any time during such a climb or descent their vertical speed is, in fact, less than 500 ft per minute.
This requirement applies to both the en-route phase of flight and to terminal holding above Transition Altitude.
Note: This is not a prohibition on the use of rates of climb or descent of less than 500 ft per minute where necessary to comply with other operating requirements.
:cool:

[irish777]

Sleeve, why are you quoting a NATS reference? We aren't referring to the UK here.

To those doing 100fpm 'CDAs' have you ever looked at the fuel flow compared to doing 0fpm - is it really worth it?!

[Eau de Boeing]

Maybe slightly off topic here but just got back from a medical induced diversion to the sub-continent.

Despite what is frequently written here, we were helped out in every way, given weather avoidance, high speed, direct to the airfield and a tight circuit, resulting in us being able to transfer the sick pax to proper medical care within the golden hour.

I won't even mention the fact that they managed to turn around a dugong in less than an hour and get us on our way again after a very long night.

It is good to see that when the sh*t hits the fan, the guys out there are just as professional as I would have expected in other major airports.

Thanks again :ok:


Now back to CDA's.......:ugh:

[harry the cod]

Tightseat

Agreed, just wished more applied that rationale. Sticking in VNAV with a 2000+ rate of climb as you approach head on traffic is poor airmanship. You know you ain't going to get climb until opposite direction has passed so reduce your climb rate! How you do it is up to you, just as long as you do it! Then people wonder why they have a TCAS traffic advisory, hit V/S and then just stare blankly at the FMA as the aircraft goes into ALT HOLD, maybe hitting V/S a few more times for good measure!. :ugh:

Jeeze, I'm getting old, grumpy and need a friggin holiday!

Harry

[Rule3]

We have a "Classic" cross in BAH FIR with Qatari inbounds at FL330 and UT500 RULEX traffic at FL320, and you guessed it........15 miles before the cross......QTR123 request descent.

:ugh: Airmanship???????

[ExpatBrat]

Gee it's fun to read the latest post in a five page thread and see how little it has to do with the original topic!

I agree with the controller who started this one - we need to listen out better sometimes. But so do you.

I've long thought that if airlines using Dubai would simply read the AOI pages for the call requirements to departure and arrival, half the clutter would disappear. This is ESPECIALLY relevant for Emirates since it's our base. I heard an EK flight not long ago call arrival with call sign/passing level/cleared level/atis/qnh and squawk. I mean, seriously buddy? You live here. There's no excuse for that. This kind of clutter just ties up the frequency.

This next bit isn't racist but all of us who have flown to the sub-continent know the radio discipline there is terrible and they bring that into Dubai, tying up the radio here as well. Boys if you can only manage one thing, please wait your turn, that's all. Just do that.

And ATC isn't guilt free on this either. A lot of us out there have something to say or ask but it's tough with you telling us 1500 feet or better rate of descent in a hold, every. single. time. you clear us further down. That's just stupid.

So yeah, calls get missed but it's a shared blame I believe.

Oh and one more thing....Dubai is using min separation on final now and landing clearances are coming late. So if you don't keep it brief and wait your turn on that frequency people are going to be going around and it'll be your fault.

[Sunrig]

@ seaman
I doesn't mean he's not professional when asking for confirmation of his readback. There are companies that require you to confirm every instruction by ATC when the other guy on the flightdeck takes a controlled rest break. So he maybe just followed the SOPs.
Could be as well two stupid guys on the flightdeck...;)

[ironbutt57]

When did the word "to" work it's way into level/altitude clearances..is it procedure? or just happen?

[irish777]

ironbutt, in the UK the terminology is 'descend TO altitude 3000 feet' but 'descent flight level one hundred' however in Australia, terminology is 'descend to' for levels and altitudes I understand. So it's probably the usual mix of country specific mixes that all come together in this place.

[FuelFlow]

2.3.12 ATC-Assignment of Levels and Altitudes Levels shall be assigned/reported as follows • For altitudes the word FEET shall follow the level indication. The word ALTITUDE may precede the level indication. • For flight levels, the level indication shall be preceded by the term FLIGHT LEVEL

Use of the Terms To and For According to ICAO PANS-ATM a level assignment may be given as follows:

Altitude ABC 123 CLIMB TO 5000 FEET Flight Level ABC 123 CLIMB TO FLIGHT LEVEL 150

However several countries have banned the use of the words TO and FOR in connection with the assignment / report of levels due to the risk of confusion with the corresponding numbers TWO and FOUR. In the following chapters the official ICAO wording is used. For further information on country specific RT phraseology please refer to the appropriate CRAR.

[Global Nomad]

EK comms have been shocking in the past, improved a little 5 years ago but have recently slumped again. Frankly it's indicative of the standards, good operators don't make gash radio calls.

On the subject of asking a controller to confirm every frequency, what about having half an idea as to what the next frequency is by (shock) taking a chart out. OK, the Indian controllers are appalling at verbal diarrhoea but if you don't understand them just ask them to repeat their message slowly. I'm a native English speaker and if I can't understand them, it has to be their inappropriate pace of delivery. I don't second guess anything and as much as it frustrates them to repeat it, subsequent calls to you will be far easier to understand once they get the message to slow down.

An FO I was with recently insisted that the controller had given us a specific routing, I asked him to get the controller to repeat the instruction slowly. The instructions bore no resemblance to what the FO was trying to convince me he had heard.

[lospilotos]

I don't know about other carriers/fleets, but why are we not using a hot-mike intercom on the EK 777? In a busy environment it doesn't really help that you can hear what the guy next to you is saying either. I understand nobody wants to sit with the headset for 10 hours in cruise but for taxi, take-off, approach and landing it would be beneficial IMHO...

[nolimitholdem]

On the subject of asking a controller to confirm every frequency, what about having half an idea as to what the next frequency is by (shock) taking a chart out.

Fantastic idea. On those awesome LIDO charts, or better yet a Class 2, which method do you prefer to select a frequency from the dozen listed? Do you start at the top and work down? I always preferred to just pick at random.

Keep the great suggestions coming. What is a "gash" call? Sounds naughty.

[cerbus]

I bet ORD can't wait for Emirates to start flying there, the 2nd busiest airport in the world.
A busy ground controller will spit out rapid fire taxi instructions to numerous aircraft, and each is expected to respond and move in turn. If a pilot misses a clearance, or fails to accurately read it back right away, they will be told to taxi to the "penalty box" and to sit and wait for the controller to have time to re-issue a clearance. As busy as O'Hare always is, this sit is truly a penalty.
Be ready for 6-7 taxiway clearances at a time and let's not have the amateurs start with that is too many to handle. If it is indeed too much please bid away from ORD and save EK the embarrassment.

[CaptainChipotle]

I wonder how well a progressive taxi request would go over in ORD?

Its been a while, but I don't think a 777 would fit in the box? Maybe send them to the scenic box, but that would be even a bigger blunder.

[ironbutt57]

Question answered...thanks..and yes..have heard, and myself been confused on occasion when the word "to" was injected into an altitude/level clearance...always preferred "descend/climb and maintain"....and re: Global Nomad's post..I was also musing about this when the other day I heard an EK on the radio, whose comms "proficiency" was below zero, and thinking to myself that of all the carriers in my two+ decades over here, I can count on one hand how many times I have heard an EK flight with comm issues...sign of the times i guess

[Global Nomad]

Jeez nolimit, you expect to be spoon fed here as well?

[TransitCheck]

Explain to me how having clear and concise information in one place is being "spoon fed".

Personally, I would rather be TAUGHT the real interpretation of the 10 books we have rather than have 100 interpretations from all the know it all pilots/lawyer speak interpreters who don't have a life outside of flying at EK and sit at home and read all the manuals at EK in their spare time. Then these guys want to go to work or come on PPRUNE and spread their infinite knowledge and wisdom as "SOP" when most are totally wrong.

There is nothing "spoon fed" about that...in fact, it would correct half the problems we have in the EK training bureaucracy.

[nolimitholdem]

Sorry Mr. Nomad, I didn't catch your response about the charts, I was hoping for another pearl of wisdom especially about the word "gash". Is that standard phraseology or something regional?

I'm really sorry about all the spoon-feeding, but I learned in CRM to use all available resources. And you just sounded like someone who knows everything. You might say that you know pretty much all. I guess that would make you a know-it-all?

I love this thread. Cheaper entertainment than the hookers at Long's Bar during Ramadan.

I think EK pilots should start submitting reports on their colleagues, noting the flight no., time, place, and assessed level of proficiency that they heard on the radio. I mean who better to judge each other than your peers? (Reports from Australian and British crew would be of course, be considered with twice as much gravitas). EK could then design a tailored Distance Learning course (unpaid, naturally) to help clean up all these slackers who all seemed to have joined in the last six months.

*wrings hands*

[dubaigong]

This " spoon fed " stuff seems to be a Middle East concept to avoid providing proper training and good guidance.
Most of the professional pilots here are willing to act properly but needs to be taught first what is expected from them.
What we have here is each trainer coming with a different interpretation of what he thinks is correct and make most of us confused...
And as said before , once away from work why should we spend days to try to find on our own what is the correct way for everything ?

[holdyourhorses]

"And ATC isn't guilt free on this either. A lot of us out there have something to say or ask but it's tough with you telling us 1500 feet or better rate of descent in a hold, every. single. time. you clear us further down. That's just stupid."

Just a point out re higher rates of descent requests by ATC in the holds, This should 'normally' be used if there is a tsunami of traffic behind you and all going to the one single point/hold! (I do agree some controllers have just gotten into the habit of using it, that IS stupid). Confirm?

[Emma Royds]

All we need is a NOTAM pending a note ('Minimum rate of descent 1000fpm unless instructed.') in the UAE AIP, which in turn will show on the charts for Dubai. Granted it is perhaps easier said than done in this part of the world but someone up high has to grow some balls and do something. The extra R/T loading with all these extra calls is getting silly.

[macbe327]

Edit* sorry for dredging up an old thread, found it while searching and missed the date!
This is from the NZAIP (emphasis added)

"When climbing or descending in Classes A, C, and D airspace unless ATC has specified a climb/descent rate and/or time or place of commencement, pilots must initiate climb or descent promptly on acknowledgement of the clearance, or advise ATC so that separation from other traffic will not be compromised. The change of level should be made at an optimum rate consistent with the normal operating performance and configuration characteristics of the aircraft to 1000ft above/below the assigned level, then reduced as appropriate until the assigned level is reached. At other times in climb or descent, pilots must advise ATC if they wish to level off at an interim level or substantially change the rate of climb or descent."

I don't know if other countries have a similar rule (sounds like they don't) but in New Zealand at least 100fpm descent without advising the controller could lead to paperwork/a loss of separation.

[Eau de Boeing]

It's not the airport you're expecting but the onward clearance e.g LAM 3A or LAM WELIN TNT DAYNE 2A etc, it was introduced to cut down the controller issuing a clearance, requiring a subsequent readback.
I don't believe there is any EK documentation on it specifically.

[speedbirdhopeful1]

Correct, the 'expected STAR' call on initial contact with London was an agreement with ATC and British Airways among some others to reduce RT workload. It's not in the AIP.

Meanwhile in Dubai, it's categorically NOT required. "Report ONLY passing level and aircraft type on first contact" (capitals are mine..) it's still amazing how the poor controllers have to ask for the type after our EK brethren spew out all sorts of crap but missing what they do actually want.

What's with 'PDC received' as well? We don't have PDC in Dubai, we have DCL and it is acknowledged 2-way with CDA message when you accept?! Maybe I'm missing something.. Why don't we report 'load sheet received, doors closed, DCL accepted and turned green on the screen, cockpit door locked and we are completely, fully ready'

[Xulu]

Before the 2012 Olympics they introduced it to ease anticipated congestion. It's not mandatory but is appreciated to avoid additional lines of RT.

[Panther 88]

But I do get a chuckle when the controllers ask FlyDubai their type, when the mandatory call has gone "missing".

[Laker]

Speedbirdhopeful1

I disagree with your post. You say the AOI's state "ONLY report passing level and aircraft type." The AOI's state "report passing level and aircraft type." You will also notice that every time you request the D-Atis at the very bottom it tells you to "report receiving information "A" on first contact with control." So you should report passing level, type, AND current ATIS. I believe every approach control in the world wants you to acknowledge the current ATIS on first contact. Just because the AOI's stipulate you should report aircraft type and passing level does not absolve you of the responsibility to report the current ATIS.

[dubaigong]

I understand the controllers , they should be dealing with Professionals and we are not able to give the only 3 items required as per the AOI page 1-40 for Dubaï Airport arrival - ACFT callsign
- Passing level
- ACFT type
Instead of that they get plenty of information NOT required blocking the frequency for a much longer time... :{

[Laker]

Again...there are 4 things. Call sign, passing level, type, and ATIS. Read the ATIS next time you get it. It quite clearly states that you are required to report receiving information "x,y,z" on first contact with control.

[ironbutt57]

most places just ask for an ident if they need the info...UAE is the first congested place I've seen radio time wasted on repeating these details over the airwaves

[Saltaire]

Laker - DXB does not need the ATIS. Call sign, passing level, A/C type. True, other airports may require mentioning it but in DXB it clearly states it's not required. It's why we read the AOI pages. Does the approach controller confirm with every flight that doesn't mention the Atis? No.

Guys stop spewing out all the needless info. It's a waste of airtime and more confusing for everyone. KISS.

[speedbirdhopeful1]

Again...there are 4 things. Call sign, passing level, type, and ATIS. Read the ATIS next time you get it. It quite clearly states that you are required to report receiving information "x,y,z" on first contact with control.

Are you a bit pedantic Laker?! Is this your 'thing' you like to inform us all 'for your benefit mate?'
I see your point on the ATIS but it's not stated in the AOI, and the controllers tend to say the ATIS letter back to you regardless of whether you told them it or not, along with the runway in use for some reason after you check in. Yet more unnessacary RT. The ATIS letter on arrival obsession I've only seen in Aus and the US, in Europe it's seldom asked for.. Ready to be shot down, glad we're keeping it big picture and not sweating the small stuff..

[Capn Rex Havoc]

I have to agree with speedbird.

Clearly the aim of the directive in the AOI is to reduce the amount of rt in a very busy airspace. It is like the first call to departure, only c/s and altitude passing. If guys don't understand that then :hmm:

[crewmeal]

Don't they wish you a Merry Christmas anymore?

[TangoUniform]

I am in agreement with Laker. The info after checking in is all on the ATIS, so no need for the controller to mention altimeter, expect runway xx, etc, etc. Of course it is mandatory here for controllers to repeat the ATIS information, even when you have the latest and correct airport ATIS. It would be a drastic change, but mentioning you have ATIS "ALPHA", tells him/her, you have the latest altimeter, know the expected runway, current WX. and the correct altimeter setting. Just repeating what is already known. No need for more R/T. THE busiest air spaces in the world seem to make it work. And why say aircraft type......I'm guessing it's all on their strip. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Well it is done in the UK, so it must be done around here.

Talk about a lot of wasted chatter. Talk to me if there is a change in the ATIS or a different altimeter. "New ATIS is BRAVO. Acknowledge with an ident". It would have to be a change in what is mandatory, and a change in the thinking of those with pay grades way above controllers and pilots. But I would hope the ATC equipment is modern enough to handle such a "drastic" change.

Think of all the R/T the controller would not have to do if there wasn't all this mandatory superfluous repeated and already known information.

And Saltaire, you want to KISS? Try this; call sign, passing level, and ATIS. Controller's response; Identified..and any further instructions. Too me, that's your K.I.S.S.

[speedbirdhopeful1]

The verification of type is due to wake separation I believe. Many airlines use repetitive flight plans and may not be accurate. Last minute substitution etc could have drastic consequences for airlines with medium/heavy fleets for example if the controller is separating based on the wrong category.

[TangoUniform]

Speedbird, Of course you are correct. But easily taken care of with SUPER, HEAVY, or nothing after the call sign. Would also help a little with call sign confusion. I would like to know from some of the lurking controllers if it is on your strip and if so, how often is it incorrect.

Im surprised that the Super, Heavy, is not mandatory. In that, if the type is not identifiable on the strip or screen, will a controller remember type twenty minutes later whilst balancing twenty or so aircraft at one time? With adding the classification to the call sign, twenty minutes later he will at least know his separation requirement.....and so will you. All adding up to increased S/A. You won't have to ask what type are we following and he won't have to respond. All reducing R/T.

Too much caffeine after flying through the night. Fun discussion. :ok:

[Saltaire]

So much for keeping it simple TU - too much caffeine is right.

I'll teach and stick with what the AOI references. It's worked so far without any further questions from ATC. We need less unnecessary RT, not more. ATC approach will invariably will give you the current ATIS, QNH, and runway in use.

[TangoUniform]

Salt,
Yes sir, you are correct. That is what the AOI says, and those are the procedures that are mandatory to follow. Absolutely no argument there. Those are the expectations and that is what should be done.

My point is there is a lot of superfluous R/T that COULD be done away with if the procedures from the GCAA, and those around that make the rules could see the efficiency of call sign, passing altitude and ATIS. But it's more or less working with current procedures, so no reason change of course. Lastly, ATIS was "invented" so the controllers did not have to give you wx, runway, altimeter etc. to reduce their workload. These procedures just add to it by repeating info on the ATIS. At least they're not adding current weather on initial contact.

But Laker has a point. What takes priority, AOI pages or ATIS? The problem is, there is no difference between departure and arrival D-ATIS here.

Guess that's enough of a discussion about ATIS. Let's get back on topic on how R/T is the US is the abysmal and how it just doesn't work. That's always good for two or three pages of discussion. :rolleyes:

[JAARule]

The entire region is a mass of confusion - UAE can't decide amongst themselves if the next callsign is "Dubai Approach", "Dubai Arrivals" or "Dubai" when they transfer a flight onward.
easily taken care of with SUPER, HEAVY, or nothing after the call signThat wouldn't appear to be enough because they seem to require differentiation between, for example, 200 and 300 series 777s.
The problem with the AOI is it's written by a very cheap provider and therefore errors and omissions are regularly found in it. It's not surprising the AOI missed the fact that ATC wants the ATIS designator included in first transmission. It's not for pilots to decide what's written on the ATIS can be ignored. Blame the Trg Dept - many of these calls are being made by newbs.

[Laker]

Speedbird,

Again it's written DIRECTLY ON the ATIS. Sorry to resort to caps. But I'm not pulling this out of thin air. Read the whole thing next time. I understand that the AOI is your bible but the ATIS clearly sates "On first contact with approach advise having information...." Are you going to ignore that instruction because LIDO didn't include that statement in the AOI's? Lots of AOI's don't state the need to report ATIS on first contact but you still have to do it. The instruction is on the ATIS itself. AOI's generally include things that are region specific or non standard. Not basic aviation. If it helps I've asked a couple trainers in the EK training department because i've seen this argument a few times. They both looked at me like an idiot and said of course you have to give them the ATIS on first contact.

[Saltaire]

It would be nice if someone in ATC would chime in here. My understanding, even though the ATIS mentions to report on first contact, it's not required. The AOI gives more specific guidance to simply mention call sign, passing level and A/C type. Why would they specifically write this in the AOI? To reduce R/T transmissions perhaps? :ok:

I have never mentioned the ATIS on first contact with dxb approach. Not one controller has ever asked or questioned us for the current ATIS.

Wouldn't it be nice if they all were like DXB director. Call sign. Follow instructions thereafter....

Local ATC units need to give airlines more specific guidance. There is far too much variation of R/T information being passed on from both sides. We have pilots spew out just about every parameter to approach they can muster in one transmission ( except for passing altitude ) only for them to come back and simply ask " EK ... what is your passing altitude? " How many times have you heard that? Many I would imagine.

I'm sticking with the AOI for now. Less R/T

[Guy D'ageradar]

Saltaire - ask and ye shall receive!

dubaigong is correct - a\c type is required as many regional operators regularly swap aircraft types on repetitive plans - often switching between vortex categories. Separation losses have occurred due to incorrect information - cue knee-jerk by GCAA, ie - REQUIREMENT to check type (except Flydubai / Airarabia who only operate one type).

Passing level is also required to verify mode c readout. It shouldn't be, as you are all coming (to Dubai) from a radar environment where it will have already been checked but the GCAA disagrees........ again!

No one does it for fun - all is mandated by local regs.

[Eau de Boeing]

And ATIS mate? or No ATIS?

[Guy D'ageradar]

only requirements are to give / verify QNH and type of approach - runway doesn't change that much but , for example, during 30L closures, we need to use RNAV approach to 30R as much as possible (helps the tower flowers with holding point allocation) and many operators either can't fly the RNAV or wrongly assume ILS approach as standard.

[Saltaire]

Thank you. 👍 No Atis.

[TangoUniform]

But shouldn't that be said/read on what type of approach on the ATIS? OMDB D-ATIS doesn't have enough info on it. It's more of a departure ATIS. Secondly, by using category identifiers (super, etc.) as done elsewhere, that would preclude more chatter WRT the aircraft type for wake separation.

Not saying WHAT has to be done around here, just saying there is a more efficient and safer (less R/T requirements) way to do it. Busiest airports in the world have been doing it that way for decades and decades with zero issues. But don't try and change anything around here, can't be done. And everyone who flies here regular should know the game and adhere to it.

[Bus Driver Man]

Speedbird,

Again it's written DIRECTLY ON the ATIS. Sorry to resort to caps. But I'm not pulling this out of thin air. Read the whole thing next time. I understand that the AOI is your bible but the ATIS clearly sates "On first contact with approach advise having information...." Are you going to ignore that instruction because LIDO didn't include that statement in the AOI's? Lots of AOI's don't state the need to report ATIS on first contact but you still have to do it. The instruction is on the ATIS itself. AOI's generally include things that are region specific or non standard. Not basic aviation. If it helps I've asked a couple trainers in the EK training department because i've seen this argument a few times. They both looked at me like an idiot and said of course you have to give them the ATIS on first contact.
Good that you asked the EK trainers. They are always correct.

I asked the same question to a DXB approach controller and he said that the ATIS doesn't matter.
All he wants is callsign, AC type and passing level. If you want to give the ATIS code, that's fine, but it's not required. Just don't give anything more than that.

And yes, you are right that it is mentioned in the ATIS to report it, but I'm sure no one bothered to remove it from the standard part of the message, because they didn't expect pilots to make a fuss about it.

[speedbirdhopeful1]

Same here, the last EK CRM course had an approach controller present and he said ATIS is not required. Something about that note to report info XYZ received being there as standard for the departure ATIS, which we give to them via DCL anyway which is our 'first contact'. I guess Laker also likes to confirm he's received the ATIS again to delivery and also ground just to be sure?

[Laker]

Same here, the last EK CRM course had an approach controller present and he said ATIS is not required. Something about that note to report info XYZ received being there as standard for the departure ATIS, which we give to them via DCL anyway which is our 'first contact'. I guess Laker also likes to confirm he's received the ATIS again to delivery and also ground just to be sure?

No I don't. I notify them that I have the current ATIS via DCL on departure. On arrival I notify approach on first contact that I have the current information as instructed by the ATIS and from what I've heard from ATC and the EK training department. I've also had a Dubai ATC in the jumpsuit a few years ago and asked the same question and received a different answer. But apparently he and the EK instructors were wrong. I'm not sure how complying with a written direction and reporting having information 'x,y,z' is "making a fuss." I personally couldn't care less. To me the whole region is a mess. I just try my best to comply, not make waves, collect a paycheck, and hopefully leave and never come back someday soon. Like anything in Dubai there are conflicting directives and nobody wants to bother to clear it up. I do find it funny that OMDB ATC starts a thread complaining about EK pilots not operating to standard yet OMDB ATC gives conflicting directions to something as simple as what's required upon initial contact.

[Wizofoz]

Well, from experience, if you DON'T tell them what ATIS you've received, they reply with "Information XXX current", so in practice including it cuts down RT traffic.

And if they DON'T want it, they can take it off the ATIS.

[yardman]

Regardless of what you say ATC always give the QNH, approach type and runway in use, which you have to acknowledge. So why bother waste your breath and tell them you have ATIS X,Y,Z? It's just another example of those 'special' UAE procedures.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Wiz- I beg to differ. They never seem to give the Atis code, they always give the qnh and runway approach in use.

[White Knight]

Depends on the individual I guess Rex as sometimes they give the ATIS code and sometimes they don't! Seems to me don't is the more usual... As you say...

[Guy D'ageradar]

As I said, it's not our choice but GCAA requirements - feel free to try and change their minds. I won't hold my breath! :)

[Eau de Boeing]

I think we have slightly bigger battles to fight........!

[Bus Driver Man]

I think we have slightly bigger battles to fight........!
Exactly.

We get conflicting instructions. ATC gets conflicting instruction. Nobody knows what's correct, but nobody fixes it, because nobody wants to take responsibility. That's Dubai... (Everything here, not just aviation.)
Not caring makes me a little happier. (Or a little less unhappy?)

[Private Pike]

Follow the AOI: c/s type, passing level and type on first ctc. Even D-ATIS atis says to adv ac type on first ctc, nothing about ATIS letter. Don't block the frequency with superfluous chatter.

[MosEisley]

Seriously, 9 months and 8 pages of this pedantic drivel? Potential joiners, if all the other reasons not to join haven't convinced you, this discussion should. Once you're in the left seat, doesn't really matter. But have fun for the first 6-8 years in the right seat being debriefed on how you spoke on the radio at 4 am after 12 hours duty. Reason 357 I can't wait to leave this pathetic excuse for an airline.

Want to stir up a real hornets nest? Start talking about fuel policy, continuation and commiting to destination. You will get 10 different interpretations and everyone thinks they're right.

Sorry for the pissy tone, but I just woke up tired for the thousandth time in the last 8 years and saw my roster for next month. Sleep is for the weak, keep rowing!