LHR - new R/T procedure

[Preppy]

Why are the Heathrow controllers using new and non-standard R/T phraseology?

Aircraft approaching the holding point (not holding position! ) are now told by the “Ground” controller on 121.9, to “standby on Tower frequency 118.5”.

What’s wrong with the old expression “listen out on 118.5” or, even “monitor 118.5”?

:confused:

[ATCO Two]

Why indeed! The reason is that the latest MATS Part 1 Amendment phraseology section issued by SRG dictates that we should now instruct pilots to "standby" on the next frequency until they are called by the Controller, rather than the more logical "monitor". Monitor can only be used for listening to an ATIS or similar recording. The other difference is that we are also now expected to say, "27R cleared take off," rather than cleared take off 27R." Something to do with bringing our phraseology into line with ICAO, I understand. So the answer is that it is standard phraseology - get used to it.

Luckily we managed to quash the use of the ridiculous holding position (instead of holding point) - due to too many aircraft coming to a sudden, unexpected halt, and its use was promptly withdrawn by SRG. If only the geniuses that invent these phrases would just think of the possible ramifications for a second! Or better still, come and visit operational Units more often!

[evenflow]

I could understand this change if an incident had occurred (or is likely to occur) as a result of an aircraft being told to monitor 118.5, but as far as I know this has never happened.
I can only think that some people have too much time on their hands...what a load of bollocks.

[Captain Stable]

Does the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" come to mind?

[Carnage Matey!]

But then meddling jobsworths would have nothing to do. They might even have to downsize their departments, and we couldn't have that.

[Preppy]

Thanks folks.
So these R/T changes are listed in the <<<latest MATS Part 1 Amendment phraseology>>>. Isn't it strange that nobody has bothered to tell the pilots operating into LHR about these changes?!

Does anyone know the names of the people in NATS (or wherever) who are making these changes to your manuals? If so, I will ask the BALPA ATC technical gurus to have a word with them! It will be interesting to hear the justification for this nonsense!

:) :)

[Spitoon]

Preppy, you may not like the new phraseology but if it has changed to align with ICAO have a thought for all the other pilots from other countries who will be expecting the standard phrases to be used.

OK, that was a bit tongue in cheek, but you reasonably might ask how ICAO manages to adopt poor or confusing phraseology as a supposedly worldwide standard. If the ICAO words were sensible we would see far fewer countries going their own way and by doing so leading to potential confusion for everyone.

By the way, pilots do seem to have been told about the new phraseology in the UK book about RT, CAP 413 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.pdf). No doubt BALPA get this book but what about your Ops Deopartment, don't you think they have some role to play in making sure that crews are made aware of changes to procedures and so on?

But you're right - it's not good phraseology and the definition of the term 'standby' in CAP 413 doesn't cover this new use of the phrase.

[ATCO Two]

The other worrying factor here (and please correct me if I am wrong), is that after their initial RTF examinations pilots are not routinely checked as to the standard of their RTF phraseology. I really think there should be refresher training in this respect. In ATC, Local Competency Examiners are responsible for ensuring that their charges maintain a high standard of RTF phraseology. At Heathrow for example we pull a sample tape for each controller annually and discuss the standard of RTF delivery with them. It still gives me kittens when I have issued a conditional crossing clearance of a runway to hear pilots say, (almost without exception!), "Cross 27L, after the landing (aircraft type)," instead of repeating the clearance verbatim, i.e., "After the landing....cross 27L."

Perhaps pilots should also be taught to listen as fast as I have to speak on GMC sometimes! ;)

[hooplaa]

Understand the new phraseology change (monitor vs stand by) is only being adopted after SRG visit for inspections. The rest of us continue to live in the real world - until the 'powers that think' NOT! come round for an inspection and tell us to use it, and yes my unit is due for such a visit. :eek:

[Cuddles]

A sure case of job creation if ever there was one. Has anyone else noticed that these things have become more prevalent since PPP?

Maybe I'm being cynical.

[Spitoon]

hooplaa, now I'm puzzled. The new phraseology is in MATS Part 1 - the document that holds all standard national ATC procedures. Surely that's enough to tell you to use the new phraseology. Are you really saying that even though the national procedures have changed, you won't use them until an Inspector visits and tells you to? I'm not sure who's living in the real world.

ATCO Two, good point about recurrency training. While pilots do plenty of sim rides, my understanding too is that flying skills are trained and tested but other things like phraseolgy may not be. Maybe we're wrong - it would be interesting to get some pilot input on this.

[Hew Jampton]

At least one of the training captains in my airline does make the occasional comment on people's R/T during line checks etc, but he/they are in a minority. R/T phraseology has been a factor in accidents (eg Tenerife North and South), so perhaps more trainers should include it.

[tired]

Spitoon/ ATCO Two - you're correct, after our initial RT exam, pilots are never formally checked/tested/updated on new RT procedures and terminology. As Hew Jampton says, the occassional trainer will take it upon himself to keep himself up to date on these things, but there's no formal requirement.

[Spitoon]

Thanks for that tired. Obviously refresher training on R/T is of interest to ATC people but I wonder how many other topics are left to pilots to just pick up as they go along (and v.v. for controllers and others).

In UK ATC we now have something call Training for Unusual Circumstances and Emergencies which covers stuff that we probaably won't come across very often and might not ever experience in a career. It's not the same as everyday R/T, I know, but it's surprising how many things that I'd not thought about crop up. Each unit does it differently and not everyone thinks the scheme is useful but it highlights how many things have just been assumed as understood because it was covered briefly during training years ago.

[hooplaa]

Just because something is issued as ' a standard', doesn't necessarily mean it is right. Look no further than our refusal to adopt 'holding position' as a universal standard until they woke up to the objections. Only then did they 'allow' us to continue with the safer phraseology 'holding point'.

[Gonzo]

Well, I made a real effort today to use the new phraseology, with very mixed results.

I reckon I remembered to use the new landing and take off clearances only about 50% of the time. Is it me or does it just not sound right?

Something else, does anyone know if we now have to say: "Checker, runway 27 right, enter" and "Checker, runway 27 Right, vacate?" If the whole point of changing this is to bring the clearances in line with other clearances, with the condition first, why are we not saying 'BAW464, after the departing company 737, runway 27 left, line up and wait'?

While on ground I think I managed about 60-70% "Standby tower 118.5", which rolls off the tongue much better than "Standby on 118.5 for tower". Only trouble is, quite a few asked me what it meant, one asked me what I wanted him to do, either standby or change freq. And most BA and Midland read back 'monitor' anyway!

Gonzo.
(edited for spelling)

[M.Mouse]

I agree that companies should attempt to communicate some of these changes to the pilots.

I only learned that 'two hundred' and 'three hundred' are now acceptable phraseology, in relation to FLs, quite by accident a few days ago.

[GoneWest]

Gonzo - 'BAW464, after the departing company 737, runway 27 left, line up and wait'?

Is it "Line up and wait"...or "Line up".

Surely without a clearance to do anything in particular after "line up" that's all they will do...line up...(and wait for another clearance).

[Gonzo]

GoneWest.

'Line up' vs 'Line up and wait'.

Either is acceptable, I trained at the college using 'Line up and wait', which I find flows slightly better.

Gonzo.

[Hew Jampton]

does anyone know if we now have to say: "Checker, runway 27 right, enter" and "Checker, runway 27 Right, vacate?"
It would be an improvement in LHR safety if Checker him/herself read back ATC instructions and clearances rather than replying "Checker Rog" or just "Checker".

[Gonzo]

Hew,

Checker has, in my experience, always read back any entering clearances, be they conditional or not. The only time they don't read back fully is when you tell them 'Checker, vacate runway 27 left'", to which the reply will usually be 'Checker' or 'Checker, roger'. A few seconds later comes the call 'Vacated 27 left, Checker'. I'd imagine the reason they don't read back the vacating instruction is the possibility of confusion between reading back 'Vacate 27L, Checker' and reporting 'Vacated 27L, Checker'.

Checker will always call vacated, and will keep trying to get in on the R/T to say so, unless the controller tells him he's seen him vacate. Needless to say, you'll never be cleared to land until either the controller's seen him vacate, or he's reported vacated.

Gonzo.

[spekesoftly]

Fading memory here, but seem to recall "line up and hold" being used many years ago. Then I believe it was changed to avoid possible confusion with "line up and roll".

[spekesoftly]

Gonzo,

Your point about 'Checker R/T' is well made, i.e. thinks "Did he say he has vacated, ..... or will report vacated? "

Perhaps the good old fashioned "WILCO" could be used - or is that considered too 'WWII' ? ;)

[HugMonster]

"Checker, report vacated"
answered either by:-
"Checker, Roger"
or:-
"Checker"

:eek:

Not exactly good R/T, is it?

I was always taught that, among other things, all clearances MUST be read back. Entering a runway is a clearance. Vacating it is an instruction, so the response is "Willco".

[HounslowHarry]

Now here's an idea.

Do not simply accept what the Safety Regulation Group (Part of the CAA: Campaign Against Aviation) say.

If it's bolox, do not use it.

What will happen. Your LCEs will call you into the office: They know the score.

What will happen then; Will they suspend every one or send you home. Don't think so. There is more to worry about that is affecting the safety of passengers. Don't accept this crap.

Try using common sense for a change.

ATCOs in this country just sit back and accept any old crap. Watch what your colleagues in the EU are capable of and it is about time that ATCOs here woke up.

Rant over!

[GoneWest]

Do not simply accept what the Safety Regulation Group (Part of the CAA: Campaign Against Aviation) say.

Possible trouble here - as is so often the case - could be that the powers that be have decided to change the phraseology for a good reason.......but kept the reason secret.

If we knew "WHY" they have changed things, we might accept them better.

I believe that changes are made in European R/T because others believe that there is a possible conflict - the R/T is a living, breathing, language. In at least one country they seem to automatically assume that their R/T is perfect and could not be improved upon in any way.

We don't want that to happen.

I don't quite follow what was wrong with the old phraseology, nor can I see a clear improvement in the new one - but maybe, just maybe, somebody can. Why won't they tell us??