Near Collision at BOS between Aer Lingus and US Air
"The Heavy prefix is not used in UK because ATC provide vortex wake spacing"
Appropriate seperation doesn't mean wake turbulance encounters don't happen. The term "heavy" if I can attach it to the aircraft ahead by my SA or by the controller is helpful. I will ride a little high on the slope, sit the F/A's down in the back, ignitions on, etc.
Appropriate seperation doesn't mean wake turbulance encounters don't happen. The term "heavy" if I can attach it to the aircraft ahead by my SA or by the controller is helpful. I will ride a little high on the slope, sit the F/A's down in the back, ignitions on, etc.
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US ATC
Having operated in both the States and Europe I am very disappointed to see the reaction of some of the Americans here to criticisms of KBOS and KORD. The ATC in these airports is at times astonishing and the petulence of the albeit stressed controllers is unforgiveable.
To dismiss the obvious crazy controlling by announcing " You got to bring your A game " to these busy airports shows a fundamental disregard for the bottom line in this industry, safety. How can you bring your A Game if you are new to the field or haven't been there often? What about new on type?
Once you get used to these places it is easy enought to manage without exceeding any limits or safety margins but only because you can predict some of the daft instructions coming your way.
I have never worked in ATC however these airports display the most appalling attitude to flight crews on a regular basis. The locals seem happy to accept 'edge of the envelope' clearances from angry fast talking folk that seem to think communication is a one way street.
Until our colleagues in the cockpit over there start complaining about it nothing will be done. Do we have to wait until a near-miss doesn't miss?
To dismiss the obvious crazy controlling by announcing " You got to bring your A game " to these busy airports shows a fundamental disregard for the bottom line in this industry, safety. How can you bring your A Game if you are new to the field or haven't been there often? What about new on type?
Once you get used to these places it is easy enought to manage without exceeding any limits or safety margins but only because you can predict some of the daft instructions coming your way.
I have never worked in ATC however these airports display the most appalling attitude to flight crews on a regular basis. The locals seem happy to accept 'edge of the envelope' clearances from angry fast talking folk that seem to think communication is a one way street.
Until our colleagues in the cockpit over there start complaining about it nothing will be done. Do we have to wait until a near-miss doesn't miss?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC issues
It seems it is always easy to rant about another country's ATC system. Whether the phrasology is atrocious or a non-ICAO language is used 
(where are you Jerricho?) it seems that there's always a certain type of complainers involved that expect the world to turn around them, and cry and complain if this is not the case.
I have flown in Europe and the US/Mexico/Canada and I don't see "dangers" in either system. The key is to adjust yourself:
In Europe ONH and QFE is used and this lengthens the communication part a little. Additionally, one gets his route clearance after the t/o clearance (not sure, if this is still the case) which I found very distracting.
Controllers in the US have a slight tendency to be a little chatty (centers), but I find most airports pretty well managed (with the exception of KIAD!!!)
The non-English ATC environemt has been discussed at great lengths here, but as a non-Spanish speaker crossing the high Sierra Madre N of MEX in non-radar environment I felt it as a challenge without ever feeling in grave danger. You can either accept something out of the "box" or you can whine and complain. The key to all is to accept that the world is different and more diverse than you sometimes want it to be. Remember what you learned in your PPL training: "see and avoid".
7 7 7 7
(where are you Jerricho?) it seems that there's always a certain type of complainers involved that expect the world to turn around them, and cry and complain if this is not the case. I have flown in Europe and the US/Mexico/Canada and I don't see "dangers" in either system. The key is to adjust yourself:
In Europe ONH and QFE is used and this lengthens the communication part a little. Additionally, one gets his route clearance after the t/o clearance (not sure, if this is still the case) which I found very distracting.
Controllers in the US have a slight tendency to be a little chatty (centers), but I find most airports pretty well managed (with the exception of KIAD!!!)
The non-English ATC environemt has been discussed at great lengths here, but as a non-Spanish speaker crossing the high Sierra Madre N of MEX in non-radar environment I felt it as a challenge without ever feeling in grave danger. You can either accept something out of the "box" or you can whine and complain. The key to all is to accept that the world is different and more diverse than you sometimes want it to be. Remember what you learned in your PPL training: "see and avoid".
7 7 7 7
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squawk I'm talking about being brought to 10DME, 4000' AAL at the instructed high speed in a heavy and being patronised all the way in for demanding descent and a speed reduction. Yes a good show might get you in but it is not the way to aviate.
Last edited by Faire d'income; 29th Jun 2005 at 11:34.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Faire d'income , at the end of the day it depends how you deal with ATC. Flying into MSY from the S always involves a steep descend, the biggest pain in the dear rectum is DCA without a doubt (esp. the Rosslyn LDA into 19). We are airline pilots and a certain performance/working environment is expected from us. YOU are the PIC and if you suspect a slam dunk appraoch/unsafe ATC instruction you can always refuse it.
This brings up another question: can ATC legally assign a descend that involves a ROD that is not considered part of a stabilized approach?
7 7 7 7
This brings up another question: can ATC legally assign a descend that involves a ROD that is not considered part of a stabilized approach?
7 7 7 7
Have all US airports stopped giving clearances to "land and hold short"?
Our pilot union safety personnel issued information at least two years ago by which so many contradictions existed between visual approach go-around procedures and instrument procedures. Of course many other problems exist.
I have not heard a controller even try to assign the clearance in quite a while.
Our pilot union safety personnel issued information at least two years ago by which so many contradictions existed between visual approach go-around procedures and instrument procedures. Of course many other problems exist.
I have not heard a controller even try to assign the clearance in quite a while.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Additionally, one gets his route clearance after the t/o clearance (not sure, if this is still the case) which I found very distracting.
"Have all US airports stopped giving clearances to "land and hold short"?"
No, a daily event at ORD among others. A number of years ago the land and hold short program was called SOIR, simo ops on intersecting runways. The burden on the airport and ATC was quite a bit lower and the program was extensively used. The new LAHSO program has tighter standards of implementation and at times equipment (visual aid, lighting, rwy markings, etc) and is not used at as many airports as the SOIR program. This might explain why you don't see it as much.
No, a daily event at ORD among others. A number of years ago the land and hold short program was called SOIR, simo ops on intersecting runways. The burden on the airport and ATC was quite a bit lower and the program was extensively used. The new LAHSO program has tighter standards of implementation and at times equipment (visual aid, lighting, rwy markings, etc) and is not used at as many airports as the SOIR program. This might explain why you don't see it as much.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411. I retired two and a half years ago after around 35 years in ATC, the last 31 years as a Heathrow controller. I probably am out of touch, as I often make clear in my postings. However, I DO check the latest version of various documents and I DO remember why some decisions are made.
I know that the majority of pilots say that they would fly the ILS GP, but enough didn't to warrant the change in procedure. Maybe you haven't seen what goes on underneath? I have seen enough to know that the procedure is fully justified. Even so, some pilots still bust their levels when being vectored for the ILS...
I am very sorry that you find UK attempts to improve safety to be sad. We may not be as slick as some... but we shift large amounts of traffic safely and comments from crews suggest that they like it.
I know that the majority of pilots say that they would fly the ILS GP, but enough didn't to warrant the change in procedure. Maybe you haven't seen what goes on underneath? I have seen enough to know that the procedure is fully justified. Even so, some pilots still bust their levels when being vectored for the ILS...
I am very sorry that you find UK attempts to improve safety to be sad. We may not be as slick as some... but we shift large amounts of traffic safely and comments from crews suggest that they like it.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London, New York, Paris, Munich
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, let me say I have total confidence in the controllers in the UK and the US. I think the UK system is under-resourced and so is less efficient than it could be, but that's not the fault of the people at the coal face.
To those who slate the whole US system because of an unfortunate human error at Boston: kindly compare and contrast the recent near disaster at BOS with the near disaster at LHR on 27 August 1997.
No doubt lessons will be learned and implemented at BOS, like they were at LHR. Shouldn't we be congratulating our ATC serivice providers on that??
To those who slate the whole US system because of an unfortunate human error at Boston: kindly compare and contrast the recent near disaster at BOS with the near disaster at LHR on 27 August 1997.
No doubt lessons will be learned and implemented at BOS, like they were at LHR. Shouldn't we be congratulating our ATC serivice providers on that??
Interesting to read the earlier comments about the use of after versus behind in conditional clearances. Whilst I accept that in the UK after has been adopted for what is perceived as improved safety, I'm also concerned that the filing of differences can in itself raise safety issues. In an international aviation environment, 'differences' can and do lead to confusion and misunderstanding. I suggest a balance needs to be struck between the choice of words mandated by the regulators, and standardisation, with the latter taking priority.
On a number of occasions I've heard pilots read back a conditional line up clearance thus:-
"After the landing XXX, line up and wait behind"
Note the combination/mixture of phraseology! I have a huge sympathy for these guys, trying to comply with UK phraseology, while still essentially following their normal R/T SOPs.
On a number of occasions I've heard pilots read back a conditional line up clearance thus:-
"After the landing XXX, line up and wait behind"
Note the combination/mixture of phraseology! I have a huge sympathy for these guys, trying to comply with UK phraseology, while still essentially following their normal R/T SOPs.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Orlando, FL.
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When we fly to Canada or The Bahamas, they frequently use "taxi into position and hold" to US crews. This has been going on for years. So I guess it's accepted practice there. In the UK, and I've only had experience in the jumpseat out of LGW, occasionally the controllers use "gate" instead of "stand". But it's always standard UK banter both ways.
I remember flying N reg GA in the UK back in the early ninties out of Lakenheath, we'd have a heck of a time trying to use UK phraseology with all US GA crews. But we did our best.
In Orlando the Virgin crews are great on the radio. Blending in nicely, using standard US phraseology.
I remember flying N reg GA in the UK back in the early ninties out of Lakenheath, we'd have a heck of a time trying to use UK phraseology with all US GA crews. But we did our best.
In Orlando the Virgin crews are great on the radio. Blending in nicely, using standard US phraseology.
This thread isn't on JetBlast yet? That's amazing.
Anyway, wasn't the original post about two planes that nearly collided when taking off? So the phraseology of how to tell people to wait for a plane that is landing seems irrelevant.
For what it's worth, BOS Logan is built on landfill and salt flats in the Boston Harbor, and has to deal with noise abatement restrictions from the surrounding neighborhood. I seriously doubt that they could completely redesign the airport to avoid intersecting runways being used during takeoff to accommodate the traffic.
http://www.massport.com/logan/about_histo.html
Obviously, several other airports around the globe face similar restrictions due to geography, weather, and the simple fact that airports are built in areas where people live and want to travel to, which implies there isn't a huge amount of vacant land available to design the perfect airport.
So isn't the question about how to do this safely? And what leads to human errors that make this difficult?
Edited to add that I don't think they had any idea that aviation would be so popular when they built the airport in 1922.
Anyway, wasn't the original post about two planes that nearly collided when taking off? So the phraseology of how to tell people to wait for a plane that is landing seems irrelevant.
For what it's worth, BOS Logan is built on landfill and salt flats in the Boston Harbor, and has to deal with noise abatement restrictions from the surrounding neighborhood. I seriously doubt that they could completely redesign the airport to avoid intersecting runways being used during takeoff to accommodate the traffic.
http://www.massport.com/logan/about_histo.html
[In 1994] The ultimate goal of the project was to increase Logan's efficiency without expanding the airport's borders or compromising on environmental benefits for its neighbors...
...Currently New England’s busiest airport, it ranks 19th nationally and 35th in the world, serving approximately 23 million passengers annually.
...Currently New England’s busiest airport, it ranks 19th nationally and 35th in the world, serving approximately 23 million passengers annually.
So isn't the question about how to do this safely? And what leads to human errors that make this difficult?
Edited to add that I don't think they had any idea that aviation would be so popular when they built the airport in 1922.
Last edited by visibility3miles; 29th Jun 2005 at 18:24.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US ATCO's operate to an impeccable standard;BUT they are highly demanding and if you dont know how to play ball,they will let you know in no uncertain terms.Most foreign pilots learn this very quickly and as someone has already said,most blend in very well with the staccato abbreviated form of R/T.Some of the long-winded highly standardized R/T that you hear in Europe just wouldnt work in the States.There isnt enough air time.Traffic rates in LHR and CDG,whilst impressive,are probably about 60-70% of ORD or LAX.
Know the environment in which you operate and react accordingly.Dont go giving long-winded readbacks in crowded US airspace because they wont like it.They want to know you copied the heading and altitude and thats it.Its a matter of trust.They know what they're doing and they expect the same from you.No need to dot the i's and cross the t's.Its a gentleman's agreement.
Idunno,
Have re-read some of your obnoxious banter and I can see your problem;dont negotiate US airspace with a UK mindset.Recognize the two different operating techniques,accept it,and react accordingly.Empirically,they are both very safe operating environments.
Take off the speedbird cap,lighten up,take a coffee break and I promise you your next trip will be real charmer...
Know the environment in which you operate and react accordingly.Dont go giving long-winded readbacks in crowded US airspace because they wont like it.They want to know you copied the heading and altitude and thats it.Its a matter of trust.They know what they're doing and they expect the same from you.No need to dot the i's and cross the t's.Its a gentleman's agreement.
Idunno,
Have re-read some of your obnoxious banter and I can see your problem;dont negotiate US airspace with a UK mindset.Recognize the two different operating techniques,accept it,and react accordingly.Empirically,they are both very safe operating environments.
Take off the speedbird cap,lighten up,take a coffee break and I promise you your next trip will be real charmer...
H. Finn: In the US, the requirement to maintain the last assigned altitude, when cleared for an instrument approach, happened because of a B-727 which crashed into mountains in Virginia near Wash. Dulles Airport (IAD). This was in the 70s.
This crash also inspired the creation and requirement of the GPWS. The B-727 carried regular passengers. If it had been a freight airplane, less would have resulted regarding safety certification.
This crash also inspired the creation and requirement of the GPWS. The B-727 carried regular passengers. If it had been a freight airplane, less would have resulted regarding safety certification.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, Ignition Override, the concerned B727 crew failed to note the published intermediate altitude, and in so doing, found the ground in short order.
Not too bright...
Not too bright...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to leave aside all issues regarding personalities and examine some of the procedures in force on both sides of the Atlantic which are designed (I assume) to speed traffic flow whilst not increasing risk levels significantly.
Perhaps you all have opinions as to which procedures offer a worthwile risk/benifit gain. I know I do!
Land and Hold Short. According to FAA rules not to be used by foreign carriers, yet regularly offered to them. Often despite a flight plan entry and even a prior radio call to approach. Occasionally the timings are wrong and that results in 1 or more go-arounds, does it cause more trouble than its worth?
Landing clearances: In the UK only given when the runway is available to a landing aircraft. In the US often given at 10 miles or more with other traffic to land or depart.
Line Up clearances (Separate T/O and Landing Runways in use). In the US only issued after the preceding aircraft has departed.
In the UK line up after regularly used to reduce time between departures.
Would you rather line up after someone or land after someone who is landing after someone else thats taking off?
Thoughts Anyone?
Perhaps you all have opinions as to which procedures offer a worthwile risk/benifit gain. I know I do!
Land and Hold Short. According to FAA rules not to be used by foreign carriers, yet regularly offered to them. Often despite a flight plan entry and even a prior radio call to approach. Occasionally the timings are wrong and that results in 1 or more go-arounds, does it cause more trouble than its worth?
Landing clearances: In the UK only given when the runway is available to a landing aircraft. In the US often given at 10 miles or more with other traffic to land or depart.
Line Up clearances (Separate T/O and Landing Runways in use). In the US only issued after the preceding aircraft has departed.
In the UK line up after regularly used to reduce time between departures.
Would you rather line up after someone or land after someone who is landing after someone else thats taking off?
Thoughts Anyone?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: all over the place
Age: 63
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I love the challenge of a busy environment and non standard procedures. Nothing wrong in having to 'fly' the Aeroplane. Keeps you focused and the skills at the right level.
It is not or should not be all about pushing buttons and drinking coffee.
(if the last comment doesn't apply to anyone then ignore it, you will know in your own heart if it does despite what you say "anonymously" on here.)
It is not or should not be all about pushing buttons and drinking coffee.
(if the last comment doesn't apply to anyone then ignore it, you will know in your own heart if it does despite what you say "anonymously" on here.)