Lying Pilots ? Commercial Pressures (Threads Merged)

[Goldfish Watcher]

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_2050000/2050777.stm) are running this story.

[Mr_Grubby]

Goldfish Watcher

Don't worry. David Learmont is on the case.

[OrsonCart]

Show me an ATCO that has not been pressurised by a pilot into creating a short-cut, or been close to creating an incident as a result of flight deck pressure?

Many a time I have to explain why a flight has had to follow its STAR and then hear the rant from the cockpit to the direct cost to his/her 'company'.

Tough, I am employed to vector in a safe and expeditious way, so I will continue!

Then you add in the local night noise abatement bye-laws, CDA's, etc. Some crews really do not like these legal obligations! TOUGH!

[chiglet]

Absoloootly stoopid example.
A B747 [non UK] MAN..all points East
XXX123 HON1Y TO ZZZZ squawk 1234.
Roger, 123, cleared LISTO 1Y...etc.
Don't seem much, til you look at the SIDs:eek: :rolleyes:
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[CloggyUK]

Chig.

It looks and sounds it is much clearer to hear the difference now. Last year in may and june it was a CONGA 1Y. I presume that you don't have to check anymore wether they have a HON1Y set and find out they have the wrong sid until they're on the runway?

C

[Findo]

Orson - maybe you are inviting "rants" by pandering to them and taking time to explain stardard routes on the R/T. Not many of us have the time to be involved in such discussions. I would suggest the ground and telephone are approriate for such talk.

In 30 odd years I have probably heard 2 "rants". Both involved full cost airlines and both ended with the pilots apologising to ATC, through their companies, who did not support such behaviour in their name.

I suspect, by the lack of responses to this thread, it is a complete non issue. One ATCO having a bad day. Pressure is what we learn to deal with during training and experience in the job. Pilot commercial pressure and resultant behaviour is just another factor in the job. Doesn't happen very often.

As for one particular sector of the market I think the vast majority of the low cost carriers are highly professional and co-operative.

[HugMonster]

Does anyone else think that the "MIRSI STAR" ("Mersey Star") sounds either like a local newspaper or is a rustbucket of an old tramp steamer going up and down the Irish Sea, in and out of Liverpool with cargos of coal etc.? :D

PS The only time I've heard "rants" on air they've come from one particular low-cost airline, plus one from a controller at me - but he retired early due to "ill-health" shortly afterwards. :p

[roger]

The ground speed readout is pretty accurate at swanwick.
So when two a/c are flying the same IAS at the same level and there's a 40 knot catch up, surely some ones telling porky pies!!??

[chiglet]

Cloggy
The airline concerned, phoned the tower to check their ATC clearance, and told us that he was on a Listo:eek:
When we [rather] gently corrected his mistake, he took umbrage and "insisted" on a Listo. Same on R/T with GMP, then Ground, until the SID was read to him:rolleyes:
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[Capt Pit Bull]

Of course the reverse happens as well.

About a week ago, flying inbound to LGW on Willo 3C. 99 times out of a hundred, direct GWC is instructed, which cuts off the first few waypoints.

This time was one of the rare times when such a clearance was not received. On sector handover, next controller most incredulous that we should be on track for AVANT (IIRC), not GWC, and then proceeds to inform us in no uncertain terms (i.e. bollocking) that Willo 3C does not have the earlier waypoints!


On the speed control side of things (remembering from my post a few months ago that I'm on your side) can I just point out that wind velocity does vary horizontally as well as vertically, and sometimes quite markedly. I've had ATC query my speed on a couple of times - usually when there is a big tailwind - so controllers perhaps don't always think wind.

I was also once queried on finals at LGW. Aircraft behind being given 'back to minimum because aircraft ahead is not doing as told', when we were flying the standard 160 to 4, as instructed, (LGW based and knowing the score). It was a rough old day and we had seen a 40 kt headwind increase to 80 Kts over a couple of miles.

Now of course I'm not suggesting that all misbehaviour on the part of the pilots can be explained by such circumstances, I just want to point out that Ground speed read outs might not be quite as omniscient as you think.

CPB

[bobby-boy]

Capt Pit Bull

May I apologise on behalf of the numpty controller who was unaware of the STAR routings - It was probably a W or X Watch controller!!:D

I too have seen large differences on TC CAPITAL on the ground speed readouts when a/c 8 miles in trail are meant to be doing the same speed. Other pilots ( foreigners of course :eek: ) must occasionally fly faster than instructed though your wind explaination is useful.

[professor yaffle]

capt pitbull - as a trusting ( most times! ) soul i sometimes ask for a speed check to get a rough idea of the upper winds ( although sometimes it is a check on the speed!!)

also ref to the chirp report : i have found that this attitude is not very common ( although is on the increase ) and is not just restricted to the LCA's but from the across the board. Not so much from the foreign pilots yet - but perhaps they are brushing on the language skills as we speak!!!!

i generally assume that the guy in question has had a really cr+p day - wife's left him, cat's dead, gas bill, blah blah blah!!
was noticeable how thoroughly nice everyone has been since the news report though!!!!

keep smiling y'all!

[HugMonster]

Prof Yaffle - on behalf of pilots everywhere, I'd like to thank you for your sympathetic attitide - you'd be surprised how many times a wife can leave you... ;)

..... ah but, leaving's not the problem, it's when she keeps coming back ! - Sorry Hugs, I just couldn't resist ;) - Crashy

[Proceed As Cleared]

From FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL 18 June.

A confidential report filed by a UK air traffic controller says that aggressive pilot responses to ATC instructions are becoming more frequent, and that it is "primarily" the flight crews of budget airlines who are the culprits. The controller expressed the opinion that the "aggressively commercial ethos" in these airlines is causing this pilot behaviour.

"I would not wish to give the impression that anarchy has broken out or that this problem is occurring more often than not", says the controller's report, but nevertheless he/she gives examples of what has been observed.
This includes: pilots questioning approach sequencing; failure to observe assigned intermediate and final approach speed limitations, leading in one case to a go-around; accusations that runway visual range figures, read by the controllers from calibrated equipment were "dangerously inaccurate"; and aggressive responses to controller explanations as to why specific action has been taken.

The reporting controller says that he/she is concerned that this new kind of behaviour might be symptomatic of "frustration with anything that interferes with their ability to maintain the schedule", and that a timely report might help to ensure that this does not "compromise safety".

[Tacolote]

Well, imagine that... You wouldn't read about it... ;)

[roger]

Capt Pit Bull
digressing a little on the original thread.
Isn't 280 kts IAS the same (at the same level) regardless of the wind. For example a car travelling up (or down) a steep hill can maintain 50mph by using more or less power.
Have I got that wrong?
cheers roger

[Fokker-Jock]

This doesn't surprise me at all.

Being a pilot working for the biggest airline in Scandinavia I've heard some rather questionable phrases from "collegues" in other airlines about things procedurewise from ATC that the pilot could not know anything about. And even though we in our company has a strict priority of what to fulfill, safety is always top priority, then punctuality, then service.

I believe as we in years to come will see a growing number of low-cost operators. They are low-cost because they have very reduced number of employees on the ground, and they are very focused on keeping timetables and saving fuel-costs. Therefore we will also see more aggression from pilots who doesn't always get it their way. Unfortunatly, it seems safety is not as prioritized as punctuality with these airlines, as it seems they have a money first, then safety attitude.

However, I don't think anyone want's to crash or get mixed up in situations which compromises their safety,, but focus on irrelevant matters such as keeping the timetable, surely takes the focus off safety. We can all be stressed at times, but the greater dissipline one have to disregard timetables and jelling at ATC the more we can focus on keeping our operation safe.

I know I will be corrected in quite a nasty manner for writing this post, but the fact remains that as the management of the airline focuses more on costsaving matters then on safety,, this will also affect the employees that carry out the operation and consequently, safety.

So to those of you ATC-guys ever recieving comments or abuse from from stressed-up pilots; Ignore them and make sure you do what YOU can in order to get everyone safe on the ground, then most of us will do what we can.

Well done Guys and Girls.

[HugMonster]

Yes, roger. But what Capt. Pit Bull is pointing out is that an aircraft at, say, FL170, maintaining 280 KIAS might be doing a very different groundspeed from another aircraft as little as 20 miles from him, also FL170, also maintaining 280 KIAS, the reason being horizontal differences in the wind. Controller sees the difference on his display and thinks "Aha! Someone is telling porky pies!". Not necessarily so.

[roger]

HugMonster,
Gotcha now.
cheers, roger

[1261]

Problem is, Huggy, that I often see on my screen a 738 followed by another 738, five miles in trail on approach to the same runway, both instructed to do 180 knots, at the same (or very similar) level, and a difference in G/S readout of fifty-seventy knots.

I know that our G/S readout is merely an interpolation of radar plots, but even so, it isn't that inaccurate. It might show 165 or 195 if you're doing 180 (in still wind) but it certainly won't show 230 or 240!

I suspect that Ryanair crews are not maliciously disobeying ATC; but I have no difficulty in believing that where other airlines may promptly reduce speed when instructed, some crews may take it a bit easier and just let the speed bleed gently off over a number of miles when they're in a hurry!

[eyeinthesky]

Somewhere in the back of my (rather empty) head is the thought that speed reduction is supposed to happen at the rate of one knot per second. Am I imagining it? I think that is the rate of reduction you are supposed to do when approaching a stall for flight test purposes, so maybe that is what is confusing me.:confused:

[HugMonster]

1261, in the example you quote, I can quite understand your suspicion that someone is being slightly economical with the truth! ;)

Another slight fly in the ointment is, of course, reduction of speed in the descent. For those of you who don't have any experience of a modern transport aircraft, it is sometimes very difficult, depending on type (some are more slippery than others), to lose both speed and altitude at the same time. Bear in mind that nothing like all aircraft have speed brakes.

A related question if I may to you ATC ladies and gentlemen; If you ask us to maintain a particular speed, what margin of error do you expect? In I/R tests we are expected to maintain speed +5 kts - but that is in a much slower aircraft than is under consideration at the moment. Is +10 kts reasonable? Or more?

[1261]

That's a good question, Huggy.

I've had a quick look through my paperwork and I can't find any reference to tolerances for speed control (if anyone does know, please post!).

In practice, I'd say that the acid test is whether you're gaining on the guy in front. As usual, we'll keep an eye on it, and if a given speed doesn't appear to be working we'll change it. If you wish to fly a particular speed, let us know - it's generally quite straightforward to use vectoring to accomodate small differences in planned approach speeds. Many 737 drivers (at our place) will ask to do 170kts to 4d (rather than 160), for example. It's easy to sort, they just get a slightly wider base leg.

[professor yaffle]

huggy,
as 1261 states just let us know and generally you'll be accomodated, that's why we're here!!
however when your thinking of a +/- differential, say the one in front does the - and the one behind does +, then the departure gap for tower soon disappears and you're stuck at the hold till 2 aircraft maintain the speeds given and you can depart!!
:D :D

prof