KABOY
I'm hearing you.
They are being educated about the incongruity of track shortening and reducing speed in the same breath. It takes time however, and even experienced controllers will argue some interesting rationale for why they find it necessary to do it regularly.
Yes there are times it is necessary to squeeze somebody into a tight gap while avoiding pointing directly at another aircraft but in our normal ops that shouldn't happen too often.
I think it stems from a one-dimensional view that is portrayed by linking the targets in the arrival sequence using a function we have called Range and Bearing Line (RBL). The tendency is then to "chase the tail" of the aircraft ahead looking only at the distance rather than the overall trajectory and energy of the following aircraft i.e think in terms of time to the same point.
We have had a couple of informal get-togethers with both KA and CX pilots which has allowed both sides to discuss the issue and get a better understanding of managing the aircraft's energy more efficiently.
BTC-GC
I assume being ex-caa, and the quoted example of "G-AB", "to" is not for all. reference CAA CAP413 affected 2013.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP4132...0117928206.pdf
Chapter 3-1.2.3
•"However, care must be taken to ensure that misunderstandings are not generated as a consequence of the phraseology employed during these phases of flight. For example, levels may be reported as altitude, height or flight levels according to the phase of flight and the altimeter setting. Therefore, when passing level messages, the following conventions apply:
◦a) The word 'to' is to be omitted from messages relating to FLIGHT LEVELS.
◦b) All messages relating to an aircraft’s climb or descent to a HEIGHT or ALTITUDE employ the word 'to' followed immediately by the word HEIGHT or ALTITUDE. Furthermore, the initial message in any such RTF exchange will also include the appropriate QFE or QNH."
Well, we pretty much follow ICAO as far as possible. I've often thought UK CAA seem to trip over themselves finding ambiguity in almost anything. Granted, its probably due to bitter experience but at what point do the "belts and braces" stop?
It makes for some pretty wordy R/T when you here somebody say ".... turn right heading xxx
degrees, descend to
altitude x thousand feet, QNH xxx
hectopascals, reduce speed to xxx knots"
In a) above, please explain what ambiguity there can be in "... climb TO Fight Level 330" ?
In b), I believe the inclusion of the word "altitude" is not because of the ambiguity that "TO" might bring, but to highlight the level is referenced to QNH/QFE rather than 1013.
I actually happen to think that is a reasonable inclusion in a busy international environment, given we even have NA CX crews calling HK Approach "... maintaining one three thousand".
