Punctuality before safety: Chirp reports on Low Cost Airlines.
Anyone like to comment on which budget carrier this report refers to?
Inappropriate Interpersonal Relations
A human factors problem that I believe to be on the increase is a growing tendency observed primarily, with some of the ‘low cost’ airline operators, of flight crew reacting inappropriately to air traffic control clearances and instructions received.
These inappropriate reactions, perhaps more accurately described as inappropriate ‘behaviour’, usually take the form of overly-aggressive responses to what are perceived by flight crew as either unnecessary or unhelpful air traffic control instructions or clearances that are believed to inhibit the planned operation of the flight. Only on rare occasions do such reactions constitute a legitimate questioning of a clearance or instruction on the grounds of flight safety, something of which I would not only understand, but would entirely support on the basis of it being a valuable flight deck/ATC CRM/TRM interactive process.
Examples which have occurred recently include:
• Questioning on the R/T of the chosen traffic approach sequencing combined with an accusation that the aircraft in question was positioned ‘number two’ in the sequence because the crew were not UK nationals
• Failure to comply with assigned intermediate and final approach speeds prior to reaching 4 nm from touchdown (no adverse weather or unusual operating circumstances), resulting in a go-around by the aircraft involved
• Accusation that the Localiser Sensitive Area (LSA) was infringed during a Cat. 3 landing because of the observed position of the previous landed aircraft being allegedly within the LSA and a refusal by the flight crew involved to accept the explanation given, which confirmed that the LSA was not infringed and that the previous landed aircraft was holding in an approved position
• Frequent querying of the push-and-start order chosen by Ground Movement Control (usually, on the basis of Central Flow Management Unit-allocated Take Off times) and an aggressive attitude on the R/T when given the explanation by GMC, even when the tactical situation involves only aircraft of the same company.
• Accusation that the IRVR values passed by ATC during periods of shallow fog, are “dangerously inaccurate” (notwithstanding that the IRVR system is fully calibrated and flight checked, thereby meeting all CAA operating criteria)
• Failing to fully comply with arrival noise abatement procedures combined with a dismissive response when the error is (as required) drawn to the attention of the flight crews involved.
I would not wish to give the impression that anarchy has broken out or that this problem is occurring more often than not; at the present time, it remains the exception rather than the rule. However, it is occurring with increasing frequency and in my judgment, is due in part to the aggressively commercial ethos that exists within some airline companies and which probably translates into extreme pressure on the flight deck to achieve programmed sector flight times. In consequence, flight crew frustration with anything that interferes with their ability to maintain the schedule, clearly, will occur; this frustration will manifest itself in different ways depending on the flight crew involved.
If CHIRP is able to assist in resolving this developing situation before it reaches a level with the potential to compromise safety, it would be extremely helpful.
Most, if not all, major UK airports hold regular liaison meetings at which problems such as those described in this report can be discussed between Air Traffic Service and airline representatives. However, the effectiveness of these depends on regular participation by local operators.
As the reporter notes, the problems are infrequent. Raising awareness at this early stage might be helpful in reversing the trend.
A copy of this report has been forwarded to CAA (SRG).
Last edited by Wig Wag; 4th May 2002 at 07:05.