Slip of the tongue or a LEVEL BUST at BHX ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midlands
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slip of the tongue or a LEVEL BUST at BHX ?
Is there something in the water at Brum as recently a lot of crews seem to be passing on the wrong information to Radar on initial contact!
All SIDs have a clearance limit of FL60 but there is a high proportion of crews checking in on first contact with radar stating they are climbing to 6000ft !
A slip of the tongue you may say, or is it? How does a controller know when its just a slip of the tongue or that is their actual intention? Does this constitute a level bust?
An illustration for awareness has been provided on the BRUM ATC website July Newsletter.
http://www.egbb.co.uk/News.htm
Food for thought
All SIDs have a clearance limit of FL60 but there is a high proportion of crews checking in on first contact with radar stating they are climbing to 6000ft !
A slip of the tongue you may say, or is it? How does a controller know when its just a slip of the tongue or that is their actual intention? Does this constitute a level bust?
An illustration for awareness has been provided on the BRUM ATC website July Newsletter.
http://www.egbb.co.uk/News.htm
Food for thought
A slip of the tongue you may say, or is it? How does a controller know when its just a slip of the tongue or that is their actual intention?
pretty 'standard' stuff really.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midlands
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over 10 times in one shift !
Kick the tyres,
I tell you no lie that in one shift,at least 10 pilots reported climbing to 6000ft instead of FL60 ! I'm just hoping that Brum aircrews will read this thread and think to themselves:
a) I never do that, I know its FL60 and always state that, or;
b) Yeah its a fair cop guv, i've made that mistake but I will be more aware of it now, or;
c) I'm not really sure what i say but now I know that there is an issue with it !
The issue here is not "hey you guys, get it right" but rather "there's a potential safety issue here, so lets ALL remain aware"
The link just illustrates how close an aircraft could have got on that day if it really was climbing to 6000ft, AND, if I had missed the initial cleared level. Lets remember that all incidents are normally a catalogue of events and not just one factor.
Cheers Folks
BBB
I tell you no lie that in one shift,at least 10 pilots reported climbing to 6000ft instead of FL60 ! I'm just hoping that Brum aircrews will read this thread and think to themselves:
a) I never do that, I know its FL60 and always state that, or;
b) Yeah its a fair cop guv, i've made that mistake but I will be more aware of it now, or;
c) I'm not really sure what i say but now I know that there is an issue with it !
The issue here is not "hey you guys, get it right" but rather "there's a potential safety issue here, so lets ALL remain aware"
The link just illustrates how close an aircraft could have got on that day if it really was climbing to 6000ft, AND, if I had missed the initial cleared level. Lets remember that all incidents are normally a catalogue of events and not just one factor.
Cheers Folks
BBB
Humus Motor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: A little place called Samsonite
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Young Paul, I could not agree more. Having a relatively low 'stop' FL, especially if coupled with a low QNH and a high climb performance, in a country where almost everywhere else the vertical clearance limit is related to altitude is asking for trouble.
BBB,
It would be useful to understand why B'ham SIDs stop at a FL, rather than an Altitude.
Perhaps you could also have a polite word with your Tech committee regarding the diagram in the link you posted. It shows 1013 at sea level when the QNH is 993
.
It would be useful to understand why B'ham SIDs stop at a FL, rather than an Altitude.
Perhaps you could also have a polite word with your Tech committee regarding the diagram in the link you posted. It shows 1013 at sea level when the QNH is 993
.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midlands
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ooops my mistake !
Spekesoftly...
Thanks for spotting the error, that was my mistake, The QNH was definately 993 not 1013 so i will get that changed.
As to your question about BB Sids. This is only a guess but Brum is surrounded by the Daventry CTA and EVERY base of controlled airspace around us is a FL. (prodominantly FL45 -55). I'm presuming that considering our SIDs travel some distance from the airfield and are within the Dav CTA its a necessity to keep the aircraft within CAS.
YOUNG PAUL mentions the LTMA and to my knowledge, places like Heathrow are surrounded by a LTMA base of 2500ft outside their zone! we dont have that luxury.
Saying that, I do have alarm bells in the back of my brain ringing, telling me that we are due an airspace reconfiguration next year and i'm sure there is something about the Transition Altitude for brum, i will ask next time i'm back in work.
Thanks for your comments.
BBB
Thanks for spotting the error, that was my mistake, The QNH was definately 993 not 1013 so i will get that changed.
As to your question about BB Sids. This is only a guess but Brum is surrounded by the Daventry CTA and EVERY base of controlled airspace around us is a FL. (prodominantly FL45 -55). I'm presuming that considering our SIDs travel some distance from the airfield and are within the Dav CTA its a necessity to keep the aircraft within CAS.
YOUNG PAUL mentions the LTMA and to my knowledge, places like Heathrow are surrounded by a LTMA base of 2500ft outside their zone! we dont have that luxury.
Saying that, I do have alarm bells in the back of my brain ringing, telling me that we are due an airspace reconfiguration next year and i'm sure there is something about the Transition Altitude for brum, i will ask next time i'm back in work.
Thanks for your comments.
BBB
