Near Collision at BOS between Aer Lingus and US Air [Archive]

Idunno

24th Jun 2005, 23:03

London Heathrow is one of the worlds busiest airports, and it is positioned in some of the busiest airspace in the world.
I've never heard a London ATC'er lose his/her rag, indeed all one ever seems to receive from them is a great service done with the greatest of grace under pressure. They are never aggressive or petulant, and they use proper RT terminology at all times. The worst I've ever heard from a UK controller is a slightly exasperated tone when people won't listen out at peak times.

I've NEVER been put into a position at LHR where I felt seriously uncomfortable with the controlling - only admiration for the professionalism of those guys and girls.

On the other hand, in the US - on a daily basis - I feel that ATC in terminal areas are trying to kill me (I'm not exagerating). I find I have to treat every clearance they issue as yet another part of that effort. Its the only way to stay alive there. Yet, when I'm thrown at an approach from a great height or speed I know that if I complain or reject a crazy clearance the likeiehood is I'll be told to turn around and get out of their area.

The problems that ATC may have from airport authorities or the FAA is being passed directly onto pilots by them. Daily they foist us into downright dangerous situations - then expect us to bail them out by complying with their crummy buck passing controlling.
And if you do it - next time they'll squeeze you harder.
If you don't do it - go to the penalty box.

US ATC is totally discredited in my view if the people in that profession can't demand better standards. Lets face it - when the union was broken by Reagan that was the end of professionalism in that job in the US.

You do 800 a year there? God help you - but since you know no better, why would you expect anything else.

PS. Regarding KORD. When using RWY09 - coming in over the lake they hold you at 7,000' until you pass north of the field, then they tell you to reduce speed from 250 to 180 and descend to 3,000'. You may not know this, but large aircraft don't slow up too well, and they don't descend well while slowing up - nor do they give good descent rates at 180 knots. And yet - even at slack times of the day - ATC will turn you onto a 7 mile base and finals above the g/slope, often with a tailwind.

They do this consistently and for no apparent good reason even in slack times. The only way to get in off this kind of approach is to take the gear at 7,000' - which is a bull**** way to operate a heavy jet.

Thats what I think of KORD ATC.
Bull****.

West Coast

24th Jun 2005, 23:27

They don't have a rwy 9, they have 9L and 9R. Review your airfield diagram before your arrival please.

When you fly in to KORD you need to bring your A game. Sounds like you don't. Its truly one of the busiest airports in the world, if not the busiest. Not sure where KATL sits on the list.

"London Heathrow is one of the worlds busiest airports"

Not even the busiest in Europe let alone the world. However, it is busy.

"I feel that ATC in terminal areas are trying to kill me (I'm not exagerating)"

Again, just DON'T COME HERE. Bid around it if you find it so bad. If you honestly think it soo dangerous, you have a responsibility to your pax not to fly them to the USA.

West Coast

25th Jun 2005, 00:26

You whine about operational issues. If you seek to discredit US ATC, then judge them on moving traffic. Passenger enplanements are what landside types, bean counters, whiners and politicicians use. Look at number of operations and tell me where the busiest airports are. How many of the top 10 airports are in the US, how many of the top 20?

Have you had a chance to review your airport diagram and see there is no rwy9 at KORD. One reason I have to believe you don't bring your A game. When you fly in to the busiest airport in the world in terms of operations, you need to know the runway and taxiway layout.

Still waiting for your response about DHL.

PPRuNe Radar

25th Jun 2005, 00:31

You whine about operational issues. If you seek to discredit US ATC, then judge them on moving traffic.

Or alternatively look at accidents caused by ATC ........ much more relevant than red neck rhetoric (from whatever side)

Ralph Cramden

25th Jun 2005, 00:47

I agree with West Coast. Too many pilots? who can't fly their aircraft. There is more to flying than pounding away on a MCDU and pushing or pulling knobs on the FCU. If you are not comfortable with your ability to deal with the proceedures at your destination then you have no business flying there. Bid a route more suitable to your skills. LHR Nice might be good. You would even get the odd July off when French ATC go on strike.

I have flown all over the world and IMHO ATC in the US is by far the best I have had to deal with. They can move far more traffic per hour than any European agency I know of.

Idunno...LHR is far down the list of busy airports in terms of total movements. ATC just makes it seem like they're busy.

West Coast

25th Jun 2005, 00:55

PPRuNe Radar

I agree, is that data captured anywhere in a coherant form that allows for comparison?
I someow don't think you will find much if any operational difference between US ATC and other modern ATC units.

ChewyTheWookie

25th Jun 2005, 00:56

West Coast, have you ever been to LHR?

I flew in there tonight (no, I am not a pilot by the way) and when I left the aircraft there were SIX sets of lights on the g/s for 9L with a/c landing at the rate of one every 90 seconds. Are you saying that is not busy? As Idunno's facts correctly show, it is by far the busiest airport in Europe.

As crew for a large British airline, every now and then I am able to get hold of a copy of the air safety reports relating to our fleet. I have just counted the number of ATC related incidents in the copy I have to hand, there are more from the USA than from LHR. Considering the amount of company traffic which uses LHR, there are very very few reports of problems caused by their mistakes.

WC, you should really consider the impression you're giving of American flight crew. You're acting more like a jealous child than a professional pilot.

PPRuNe Radar

25th Jun 2005, 01:24

I agree, is that data captured anywhere in a coherant form that allows for comparison? I someow don't think you will find much if any operational difference between US ATC and other modern ATC units.

UK is zero (air or ground), so that's a pretty good comparison ;) ..... and apart from the DHL accident over Uberlingen, then Europe is relatively comparable too if you are looking at the last 20 years or so (ground collisions are the common demoninator.)

The problem when people cock and crow ... is the evidence :)

West Coast

25th Jun 2005, 01:39

ChewyTheWookie

What am I jealous of? Please do tell.

"As Idunno's facts correctly show, it is by far the busiest airport in Europe"

You speak of operational items with the landing rate you saw. Then you quote dunno's enplanement rate which is not operational in ATC terms. In terms of how many planes take off and land, LHR isn't the busiest in Europe, CDG is. I have not denigrated LHR ATC at all. I simply point out that it isn't nearly as busy as the top airports out there when judged in terms of annual operations.

"WC, you should really consider the impression you're giving of American flight crew"

Perhaps you do, but I don't concern myself with what others think of me.

"UK is zero (air or ground), so that's a pretty good comparison ..... and apart from the DHL accident over Uberlingen, then Europe is relatively comparable too if you are looking at the last 20 years or so (ground collisions are the common demoninator.)"

I would have to think the US is in that general area, can you show otherwise?

minuteman

25th Jun 2005, 08:51

And while everybody gets in a spin slagging off country X's ATC vs country Y's ATC, nobody wants to comment on the incident in BOS... :rolleyes:

Was it an isolated incident or not?
Are these sorts of clearances a regular occurrence at BOS?

The EI skipper must have got a bit of a surprise at least!

Geffen

25th Jun 2005, 09:21

Egll may not be the busiest airport out there, but we still shift approximately half the traffic of KATL on two runways. Other airports busier in europe have more runways.

GOLF-INDIA BRAVO

25th Jun 2005, 09:58

Charles de Gaulle has 4 runways against Heathrow`s 2 and Gatwick with only 1 is the world`s busiest single runway operation and like Manchester uesd to do before their second runway regularly get
between 50+ movements per hour, but does not air space also have effect
ie having Gatwick, Heathrow, Stansted
Luton plus several other smaller field in a very small area

G-I-B

SaturnV

25th Jun 2005, 10:31

excerpts from today's Boston Globe:

Two air-traffic controllers involved in a near-collision of two passenger jets at Logan International Airport this month are being retrained and will not direct takeoffs and landings until they have been recertified, the Federal Aviation Administration said yesterday.

FAA spokesman Jim Peters said yesterday that after controllers witnessed the near-collision from the tower, a supervisor immediately relieved the two employees who were responsible for directing departures and arrivals.

''The two controllers in this incident were decertified and are undergoing retraining as part of this investigation," Peters said. ''They are allowed to work certain positions in the facility until their refresher training is completed. They will not be allowed to work what we call the 'local control' position at the tower."

When a plane is ready to leave the gate and begin its trip, the pilot must clear his intended flight path with one controller. Then before entering the taxiway, he must obtain clearance from a second controller, who guides the plane to the runway for take off.

A third controller, in the position called local control, then clears the plane to take off and watches as other aircraft land.

Logan's tower operates with two sets of these controllers, one for the east side and one for the west side. They are supposed to ensure that planes on intersecting runways do not approach each other. That night, one controller was in charge of the Aer Lingus jet and another was monitoring the US Airways plane.

Electronic snapshots taken of the event by Logan's ground radar system and obtained by the Globe yesterday indicate the two planes came closer than the 200 feet to 1,000 feet described previously by sources familiar with the incident.

Information from the Airport Movement Area Safety System, which captures radar images of planes on the runways and taxiways every second, describes the US Airways jet coming within 171 feet of the runway intersection where the Aer Lingus plane was taking off. The images suggest both planes were still on the ground, though officials have said the Aer Lingus plane had just lifted off.

According to the radar data, which Peters did not dispute, the US Airways plane was traveling 167 miles per hour as the Aer Lingus jet passed directly in front of it at 198 miles per hour.

Peters said the FAA turned over the radar snapshots and other records to the NTSB, whose investigation includes examining their accuracy before a final determination is made on how close the planes came to each other and who was at fault.

Spokesmen for both airlines and for the Massachusetts Port Authority, which operates Logan, declined to comment yesterday, saying they are waiting for the safety board's conclusions.

The safety board has conducted an initial investigation and is expected to soon release a preliminary report. .....
The FAA, however, doesn't wait for the NTSB's analysis before taking action.

''If it's warranted, we can decertify the controllers involved in these kind of operational errors," Peters said. ''They undergo retraining in specific areas found to be contributing factors that led to this operational error."

The retraining is expected to take 15 work days, he said, at which point supervisors will decide whether to recertify the two controllers.

By my crude math, at the US Airways acceleration speed, they missed by about 1.5 seconds.

Tom the Tenor

25th Jun 2005, 11:00

Have a good look at the face of your Breitling and see how close less than 2 seconds is!

Now, stop mouthing off at each other Yanks, Brits and Europeans and consider what would have been the fate of the EI and US passengers and crew if the difference had been 0 seconds.

Those passengers deserve better than the babyish whining being displayed here?

PPRuNe Radar

25th Jun 2005, 11:27

West Coast,

I concede that things are 'generally' comparable on both sides of the pond. It depends on how you take the cut and whether you compare regions or individual countries. In the interests of getting back on track, let's agree things are similar on a wider scale. Disregard my previous comments on that basis :ok:

411A

25th Jun 2005, 11:30

Every once in awhile, West Coast 'gets it right'...and he is right on the mark with his brief comments about US vs EU/UK ATC.

IE: if you can't stand the pace, stay home where you belong.

411A has operated to nearly every European/UK large airport over the last 35 years with heavy jets, and I have to say that LHR is just a bit better than many others, but for total safe operations, cannot hold a candle to many busy airports in the USA.

As Harry Truman used to say....'can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen'.:}

Human Factor

25th Jun 2005, 11:37

Went into KORD the other day, to land on 22R. A 747 who was supposed to LAHSO on 27R - HOW???? (even though it's not an approved procedure for us actively or passively - never let details interfere with a slick operation!!) unsurprisingly missed his turn off and infringed our runway (we were visual at 500 feet so not a desperately big deal in itself - what if we'd been at 150 feet?). Another heavy jet took off from 32R while we were at 300 feet. It's an accident waiting to happen.

In answer to my own question of "What if we'd been at 150 feet?". If we'd gone around we'd be straight into the path of departing traffic from 27L. Nice. We can't LAHSO legally anyway, although if worst came to worst and you had enough distance, you'd have to if it was the least risky option - except we'd have real (serious) trouble stopping at our weight in the LAHSO distance on 22R.

So what do I do then - apart from bid to go somewhere else and make it someone elses problem?

redout

25th Jun 2005, 12:00

Just thought i would educate the ill informed west coast

Busiest International Airport
London Heathrow handles the most international passengers (as opposed to passengers on domestic flights, which make up the majority of traffic at US airports). On an overall scale, Heathrow ranks third behind Atlanta and Chicago.

Busiest City (all airports)
When the flights from all airports in a city are combined, London is the busiest aviation centre in the world.

Only London, Tokyo and New York have two airports in the top 30 worldwide.

Combining New York's JFK (29 943 084) and Newark (29 202 654 ) still does not reach the same level as London Heathrow. Despite being the major international gateway for Japan, Tokyo Narita (28 883 606) is overshadowed by the mainly domestic Haneda (61 079 478). This puts Tokyo on a relatively even keel with Heathrow (63 338 641) and Gatwick (29 628 423).

When Stansted (18 750 000), Luton (6 500 000), and London City (1 500 000) are added on top, London handles a total of almost 120 million passengers annually.

Source: World airports Council , BAA, Luton Airport, London City Airport

As you can quite clearly see, the LTMA is by far the busiest in the world and all within such a confined area. On the other hand o'hare is pretty much isolated!!! on its own

SaturnV

25th Jun 2005, 12:47

redout, with respect to the topic of this thread, aircraft movements rather than total passengers is the better gauge. For calendar year 2004, the busiest airport in the world in terms of total aircraft movements was ORD with 992,000.

The first non-US airport to appear in the rankings is CDG ranked 9th; FRA is ranked 14th; LHR is ranked 15th with 475,000 movements; AMS is ranked 20th; BOS is ranked 22nd; and MAD is ranked 24th.
____________________

on topic, I cannot find Meters archived on the Web for June 9th, but the climatological record for KBOS for June 9th reported fog, fog with visibility below a quarter mile, thunder, and haze as the significant weather. Winds were generally 160, peak wind was 15 mph. Precipitation was 0.45 iinch.

GOLF-INDIA BRAVO

25th Jun 2005, 12:53

In this case I would have thought the number of movements would be the best way to equate which is busiest

CDG has well over 500,000 per year but with 4 runways which are all basically parallel

FRA has somewhere near 450,000 from 3 runways

LHR 467,000 from 2 runways

CDG has one other busy airport nearby
Orly

Whilst LHR has 3 in LGW, STN and LTN
I cannot comment on North American airports

I did see fun and games once at MIA when one of the taxiways became congested making it impossible for an aircraft to clear the from the cross runway forcing go arounds off 2 runways and I would think a very high work load for the controllers

G-I-B

Idunno

25th Jun 2005, 13:24

PPRuNe Radar - why did you delete my post last night!?
I provided an important link debunking WC's nonsense assertions - and you deleted it. Fortunately others have commented and shown he hasn't a clue.

There was nothing in my post that was any stronger than the language he's been using. Don't twist the debate.
"I concede that things are 'generally' comparable on both sides of the pond."???? :yuk:
No they're not! Where'd you get that idea from exactly?

West Coast - 09L KORD is too uncomfortably short for heavies. If you knew anything about what you're spouting about you'd know there's only one RWY09 under discussion and it ain't 09L.
Of course you'd probably consider it a challenge to your manhood if you were ordered to land a 747 on 09L - so you'd have to do it anyhow, and bugger the consequences to the aircraft or passengers, right?

I'd consider it if I was on fire and it was the last runway open - but otherwise, you commuter types are welcome to it.

The DHL accident occurred late at night in airspace with practically no other traffic around. Don't compare that single freak accident to the near misses that occur every day in overloaded US airspace controlled by stressed out prima donnas - the odds are not on your side.

If KORD is 20% busier than EGLL by movement statistics - do you think that means the controlling is allowed to be 20% worse in KORD as a result? Whats your point with that?
ATC in the US isn't 20% worse than the UK - its 100% worse, all the time, everywhere.

There's only one standard required - not two as you seem to believe. There is no 'A Team / B Team' claptrap - but a single standard that should be applied - always.

I used the word 'discredited' because in my view any 'profession' becomes discredited when it has lost the RESPECT of its clients or customers. I don't know a single pilot (and I include the many US pilots I know) who has an iota of respect left for US ATC.

The LAHSO situation that Human Factor just related is another concrete example of the daily war fought by foreign pilots with US ATC. They insist on issuing clearances that they know are illegal or impossible to accept, and then lose the head if you reject it. Your solution? Don't go there. Great. How about retraining the whole ATC corp to understand the actual capabilities of heavy jet aircraft? Tell them that a clearance to fly an ILS at 200 knots to the OM is impossible - yet I've been told to try it (and gee, I didn't - I refused, what a wimp).

I see your profile says you are an ex-Marine? You're a scary guy! I hope I never sit in anything you're driving - care to tell me who you work for so I can avoid you?
"Perhaps you do, but I don't concern myself with what others think of me."
This is the redneck yankee attitude we've come to know and hate worldwide of late.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

25th Jun 2005, 13:50

411A wrote: "I have to say that LHR is just a bit better than many others, but for total safe operations, cannot hold a candle to many busy airports in the USA."

As a controller who worked at Heathrow for 31 years - and did my utmost to provide the safest possible service - I was surprised at 411A's comments. Perhaps he would kindly tell us what he found unsafe about Heathrow's operations so that something might be done about it? Crews that I had the pleasure of meeting and working with, including American pilots for whom I have huge respect, appeared to have a different opinion.

M.85

25th Jun 2005, 13:52

Idunno,
If you are at 180 and need to descend more than a 1000ft/min..try gear down on your airplane..non standard but im sure it will help;-)

Happy flying in the US.Cant be worse than Africa,Greece or Italy...

M.85

411A

25th Jun 2005, 13:58

\\Perhaps he would kindly tell us what he found unsafe about Heathrow's operations so that something might be done about it?\\

Nothing 'unsafe' about LHR ops, Heathrow Director.
In fact, they generally do a fine job.
Just 'different' than at most large American air carrier airports.

However, since you asked, I personally think the guys at AMS do it better.
Just my opinion, you understand...and yes, I have been flying into LHR and AMS since the early seventies.

Idunno

25th Jun 2005, 14:00

Well thanks for the flying lesson M.85, I'll try to remember that. :yuk:

If you'd read my previous posts you'd see that I already referred to the stupidity of having to operate a heavy in that manner - gear down at 7000' downwind!
Its all the more ridiculous when there's absolutely no call for it on ATCs behalf - they throw you at the approach even when there is no traffic around.
If it looks like you're hacking it (gear down at 7000'!) they'll even attempt to tighten you up!!!:mad:

I guess bad habits are just hard to break.

Another 'solution' is to ask them (if you can get a word in around all the non-standard chatter) how many track miles they intend to give you.

If you try it, this question is usually met with a moments stunned silence (as they try to figure out what you mean by it) followed usually by a request to repeat the question - followed by another 3 minutes silence while they try to figure out how to calculate such a far-out concept. Followed by a snide comment to the effect 'I ain't got time for dat' (in other words, I haven't a clue what I'm doin.).
Do they ever really think what an aircraft is capable of when they're throwing you at the runway - or is it just some kind of big game of space invaders to them?

Cant be worse than Africa,Greece or Italy...
It should be A LOT BETTER.

Well 411A, the Dutch can be stupidly bloody-minded and argumentative too - but I'll take them over the US bunch any day.

West Coast

25th Jun 2005, 14:45

Dunno

Your face saving has a ways to go.

All this talk of how many runways an airport has isn't the only metric to determine the competence of your controllers as almost all of you are pointing out. Add in crossing runways and crossing final approach courses. One runway with for the most part only arrivals to it, another runway with only departures. volume, no complexity. Trying controlling arrivals off of 9L at ORD, your launching departures off 32L which conflict. Launching aircraft off of 4L which conflicts. If your really busy they might even be launching off 32R at the same time, which also conflicts. All that while the next arrival is only a few back. Arrive the same runway, just like LHR, but instead of only having to wait till the arrival is clear as in LHR, you have two runways you normally have to shoot the gap with departures along with the traffic on final. That's only half the airport, there's a whole different set of runways in use on the other side of the airport. Damn near a million ops a year. Makes one runway, one departure, one arrival seem down right sedate in comparison.

Again dunno, if your competence is in question, ask your Captain to fly the leg (is this where with great indignation you claim to be the Capt?) or don't go. You do have a responsibility to your passengers if the destination is beyond your capabilities, your aircraft isn't appropriate to the task or if you believe the ATC on the other end to be trying to kill you. Simply don't go. I would have more respect for your acknowledgment of your shortcomings or your belief in our ATC's shortcomings and simply not push the levers up.

"I don't know a single pilot (and I include the many US pilots I know) who has an iota of respect left for US ATC"

I bet I know more US pilots than you, even if however I don't I know a few who still respect the US system for their ability to move more traffic than anyone else. You surely know more Euro pilots, I however do know a couple who manage in ORD minus the whining. They accept they have to be on top of their game when they fly in to the worlds busiest airport. Over time I've heard most say kind things about ORD and US ATC in general.

Do you intend to stop flying in to US airspace? If I thought someone or some system either in or out of aviation was trying to kill me, I would likely stop going there. Especially so with the responsibility of the paying pax in back. Do you feel that same responsibility?

BTW, UA 747's arrive 9L on a regular basis. Perhaps those heavy pilots need some schooling from you.

RatherBeFlying

25th Jun 2005, 14:55

167 mph = 245 fps -- USAir speed

171/245 = .7 seconds

Now if that clearance was nose to fuselage centerline, we're talking

( 171-99 = 72 )/245 = .3 seconds

after taking off half the A330-200 wingspan:uhoh:

PPRuNe Radar

25th Jun 2005, 15:02

PPRuNe Radar - why did you delete my post last night!? I provided an important link debunking WC's nonsense assertions - and you deleted it.

Did I really ?? What makes you think that ?? If your post was was not abusive and provided a link which was not illegal then why would PPRuNe delete it ?

Fortunately others have commented and shown he hasn't a clue. There was nothing in my post that was any stronger than the language he's been using. Don't twist the debate. "I concede that things are 'generally' comparable on both sides of the pond."???? No they're not! Where'd you get that idea from exactly?

Generally comparable in absolute safety terms if you take the fatality incidents caused by ATC in Europe against those in the USA. (Not the UK, but Europe, of which we are an integral part). As for near misses as a measure of safety performance, I don't think we have the stats to back up any argument on either side. Much of Europe has still to put in place robust blame free reporting mechanisms which would provide the true record. Until there is consistent reporting across the globe then comparisons will always be subjective or anecdotal.

Look at the high numbers of 'Level Busts' reported in the UK. Most of the rest of Europe claim not to have them and wonder why the UK expends so much energy trying to prevent them. It is simply because there is no way for them to be reported and thus allow the level of occurence measured in those countries to be guaged. If there are no reports and therefore no incidence of 'Level Busts' then their logic is that they must not happen. Not sure why they think that crews would suddenly change their professional perfomance as soon as they enter UK airspace and be more inclined to have an error in UK airspace only.

:ugh:

Jerricho

25th Jun 2005, 15:48

Well done so far. I haven't seen this much cock waving round here for ages.

411A has made a somewhat throw away comment that sums the whole thing up perfectly:

Just 'different' than at most large American air carrier airports.

THE SYSTEMS ARE DIFFERENT!!!

From what I have seen here in North America (I'm including Canada and the US), there are several things that would have a UK controller wide eyed and shaking their head (The use of non-standard R/T just just scratching the surface). In the UK there are things done there that IMHO seem very archaic and almost analy retentive (the London TMA has evolved into a huge mess that needs a fire hose put through it).

BUT to sit here and read comments like "If you haven't brought your A game, go away".........what an absolute crock. You call yourselves professionals???? Professional nappy soilers at the moment.

I'll drop a little hint. Actual numbers of movements isn't the sole indicator to how busy or complex an airport is. Lack of airspace, proximity of other airfields, local training.........these are just some factors. Some poor controller in a tower,nowhere may very well be working like a one armed paper hanger with circit bashers, water bombers and alike without a single pax jet in sight. And giving the best damn service he can.

Go give your heads a shake.

Idunno

25th Jun 2005, 17:43

There seems to be an attitude here that you measure ATC professionalism solely by the number of a/c shifted in minimum time - however they do it.

Well its not my measure of competence. I couldn't give a damn if everybody gets airborne today or next week.

Safety First.

If your airports were all designed in the 40's and continue to create chaotic and dangerous conflicts at intersections - wise up! Limit these intersecting runway operations. Its common to see mixing of t/o and landing traffic on each of three (or more!) runways at the same time - its pure insanity.

If that leads to delays - put some proper slot control systems in operation.
The taxi delays in ORD and JFK are already ridiculous at peak times. Hundreds of aircraft every day burning tons of taxi fuel for no good reason. Pure bullcrap.

Comone guys, put your pricks back in your pants where they belong, you are putting the fear of death into travelling Joe Public. Maybe you missed the news - 400 people missed being killed by a matter of seconds in Boston a fortnight ago. Who's fault was that by the way?
Bury your head in the sand if you wish, but I want the public to know about this - maybe then we'll see some changes.

As for near misses as a measure of safety performance, I don't think we have the stats to back up any argument on either side. Tell that to the skipper of that Aer Lingus Airbus.

I guess the US pilot who he nearly collided with is a happy camper too.

One last thing.
When a US ATCer asks me to do something I believe to be unreasonable or unsafe - I don't go hoking in my flight bag for my 'A Team' baseball cap and Joe Petroni ceegar.
Nor do I 180 and head for blighty.

NOWADAYS I JUST SAY NO!!

Works perfectly for me. :ok:

redout

25th Jun 2005, 19:55

Saturn

You should read the first paragraph of my post where i made the point that ORD is busier than LHR. I said that the LTMA is by far the busiest airspace in the world

Spitoon

25th Jun 2005, 20:42

So let me get this right. There are two runways in use and they intersect. And the movements on the two runways are being controlled by two different controllers.

Well I've never worked any of these airports that would give me cause to wave anything normally kept well hidden by my Y-fronts. But if I had to do a risk assessment on the operation there's one big hazard that comes to mind almost without thinking about it.

You do do risk assessments in the US, don't you?

Knackered Nigel

25th Jun 2005, 21:43

But of course, we all know that if you are on different frequencies, there is no way that you will collide!

I have to agree that US ATC is poor with regard to maintaining safety standards. If readbacks are not wanted, then how will errors be spotted? I am sure that some airports are so busy that there is no time for a readback, but that is very dangerous.

Don't they all sound so cool on the R/T though?

London ATC are in my opinion the best, in terms of the amount of aircraft they deal with (as stated LHR, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, City) and the fact that clearances are readback and LISTENED to. In addition, they are courteous and helpful (headings to avoid weather).

In fact, readbacks occur all over Europe (ICAO?).

Standard RT is there for a reason, why is it only the US carriers who come out with the non-standard stuff? "Clear take off" = "Here we go!"

Then of course, there are the French who insist on speaking French to their own, even after accidents where language was a factor in not allowing English speaking crew to be aware of other aircraft clearances.

Amsterdam are good too, but have many more runways than Heathrow!!

I guess we are all different, but are supposed to be in the same game with the emphasis on safe operations.

Lets stop having tantrums like little kids.

Flyrr100

25th Jun 2005, 22:05

>>>>Thrown at approaches from impossible angles or heights or speeds. Ordered to observe ridiculous restrictions to keep speed too high on the ILS. Back course approaches, NDB and VOR approaches where they vector you inside the initial approach point and abandon you to your fate.<<<<

You aren't thrown at approaches. You accept approach clearances. If you don't feel you have the skill or the confidence to fly the approach, refuse the clearance. It's your decision.

I agree with West Coast. If you don't like it here, bid trips that miss the USA.

ChewyTheWookie

25th Jun 2005, 22:30

There is the quick, risky way to do things and a professional way to do things. It's like comparing a boy racer to a good driver A boy racer throws the car about and thrashes the engine, a good driver will drive smoothly and make the ride as comfortable as possible while still driving fast.

Being forced to drop the gear at 7,000ft is not the correct way to fly an aeroplane. I am not an expert, but the pilots I talk to try their hardest to avoid even using the speed brake at all and flying into LHR or most European airports, they rarely need to.

I'm sure British pilots would refuse approach clearances more often if they weren't met with the reaction that they should turn around and go somewhere else.

I can't believe that this thread has turned into an argument between the right way to do something and the wrong way to do something. Logically, the right way wins every time in most people's book. Typical that Yanks always think they are right, depite the fact that everything points otherwise.

SaturnV

25th Jun 2005, 22:47

rather be flying:
thanks for being better at the math than I. I am wondering at what kind of buffeting the US Airways 737 experienced accelerating through the runway intersection a second or two after the departing A330?

spitoon:
two interesecting runways, controlled by two different controllers, and apparently using two different frequencies. plus each of the departing runways was blocked from view of the other by the terminals and an unusual number of planes parked on taxiways because of the weather.

redout:
I dont have numbers for flight movements for all five airports in the LTMA. I was able to get a value for the total number of annual flight movements for five airports in the New York Metropolitan area: Kennedy, LaGuardia, Newark, Westchester County, and Teterboro (lots of general aviation aircraft in the latter two). The total is about 1.5 million flight movements annually. A little further distant as the crow flies, and omitted, are Stewart (Newburgh) and Islip airports.

jumbowanabee

25th Jun 2005, 23:39

Going into Newark one night, wind 290/20 landing r/w 29 and 22L accepted 22L as landing weight around 260,000kg. B727 making approach to r/w 29 on a 2 mile final we are at 2.5 miles. Our g/s 150kts his about 120kts. At 800ft atc now aware that the two A/C are going to meet somewhere around the threshold of 22L. ATC instruction to us was to do 'S Turns' Since my standard of flying is not as great as others who post here we elected to do a go around. Safe and professional. You are right you do need to put your A team hat on when flying in the USA mainly because ATC has only a B team hat in the top drawer.

ChewyTheWookie

26th Jun 2005, 00:01

Jumbo, speaking as a non-pilot, a G/A sounds like a good call. However, I am pretty sure one of the american users is now going to say "If you don't like it, stay away. Bid for non-USA trips"...

RatherBeFlying

26th Jun 2005, 00:06

Saturn V, I expect there would be a considerable buffet, but I suspect the USAir crew was not in the frame of mind to notice.

Idunno

26th Jun 2005, 02:26

Jumbo, I've had the same solution offered to me on short finals - 'S' turns in a 747!!! What utter bolloxology!

Rather be flying - you hit the nail on the head. If it was a West Coast 'Cooler Commander' he probably enjoyed the experience.

Glad to see the sane europeans finally arriving on this otherwise Gung-Ho-Yank dominated thread.

Ignition Override

26th Jun 2005, 04:38

Haven't been to BOS for several years, thank goodness, but it is a crappy airport runway layout. One (highly experienced) 757 crew was so busy with taxi clearances, turns and holding short, that they almost took off with no flaps :uhoh: . I read the condensed safety report.

Inferior airport operations (resulting from ATC management pressure) often request that pilots fly "S-turns" on final approach. One such airport with a very high frequency of go-arounds, is MSP (Minn.-St. Paul, MN). My last go-around there was about three months ago, but the individual controllers do an excellent job, considering the "supervisory pressure", possibly also political pressure.

Along with the unsafe Boston runway layout are, in my opinion, the others in my "Worst US Airport Category": Chicago's Midway, Houston Hobby and Cleveland. :( These airports are NOT next to mountains, such as at Eagle (EGE), Colorado-at these others, the terrain is flat.

One of the worst approaches is the LAX Civet Arrival, where Approach Control might give you three runway changes as you are extremely busy mashing on buttons and trying to slow down in order to configure and also not miss a partially-blocked call to switch to Tower freq.:mad:

visibility3miles

26th Jun 2005, 05:26

Just for grins, the following is a list of busy airports, since some people on this thread seem to think that's what's important here. Still, having two planes that apparantly can't see each other when they initiate their takeoff roll, using different frequencies, seems more relevant. It doesn't matter if they were the only two planes that took off all day.

http://geography.about.com/library/misc/blairports.htm

World's Busiest Airports

Dateline: 05/24/99 (Revised 06/22/00)
This is a list of the twenty busiest airports for passenger traffic, based on 1999 data from the Airport Council International. Links lead to the airport's official site, when available.

Since 1998, Atlanta has been the world's busiest passenger airport. New to the top 20 this year is #12, the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. London's Gatwick Airport dropped off the list of 20 to #21.

Visit the ACI site for the ranking of almost 600 airports.

No. Airport Name Code Location Arrivals, Departures, & Transfers

1 Hartsfield International Airport ATL Atlanta, Georgia 77,939,536

2 Chicago-O'Hare International Airport ORD Chicago, Illinois 72,568,076

3 Los Angeles International Airport LAX Los Angeles, California 63,876,561

4 Heathrow Airport LHR London, United Kingdom 62,263,710

5 DFW International Airport DFW Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas 60,000,125

6 Haneda Airport HND Tokyo, Japan 54,338,212

7 Frankfurt Airport FRA Frankfurt, Germany 45,858,315

8 Roissy-Charles de Gaulle CDG Paris, France 43,596,943

9 San Francisco International Airport SFO San Francisco, California 40,387,422

10 Denver International Airport DIA Denver, Colorado 38,034,231

11 Amsterdam Schiphol Airport AMS Amsterdam, Netherlands 36,781,015

12 Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota 34,216,331

13 Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW Detroit, Michigan 34,038,381

14 Miami International Airport MIA Miami, Florida 33,899,246

15 Newark International Airport EWR Newark, New Jersey 33,814,000

16 McCarran International Airport LAS Las Vegas, Nevada 33,669,185

17 Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport PHX Phoenix, Arizona 33,533,353

18 Kimpo International Airport SEL Seoul, Korea 33,371,074

19 George Bush Intercontinental Airport IAH Houston, Texas 33,089,333

20 John F. Kennedy International Airport JFK New York, New York 32,003,000

GOLF-INDIA BRAVO

26th Jun 2005, 07:22

In 2004 the number of Air Transport flights from the big 5 in London totalled just short of 1 million but if GA was added as well from all the local fields ie Elstree, Biggin,Denham, Fairoaks, Redhill, Northolt
Stapleford, Southend to name a few I cannot even hazard a guess and all those helicopter tracks which criss cross around the Heathrow 27 approach

Heathrow 467759 2 runways
Gtawick 190287 1 runway
Stansted 163947 1 runway
Luton 58487 1 runway
London City 52995 1 runway
95% of all that traffic is crammed in to 18 hours a day

G-I-B

makeapullup

26th Jun 2005, 08:20

wow, what intelligent chit chatter! we've been trying to work out a formula for years to work out an allowance for atc's (pay for business) alas no solution. you guys need to remember there are many variables which account for business. one not yet mentioned here is planes per controller! other things to count (before airport passenger numbers) are complexity of airspace, terrain, altitude(perfomance), equipment, weather (lhr gotta win that one) aircraft types (we have anything from C172 to B747). next point, stop throwing the DHL thing in. people died for that (atc included) and you're playing with people's emotions here! west coast - i hope you never come into "my" airspace! you give all americans a bad name! (living up to the stereotype) chow

RECSAM

26th Jun 2005, 10:23

I remember some years back I was in the jump seat on a jumbo operating into and out of Boston. There was an obviously Irish American on the tower frequency. When he told an aircraft 'clear to cross a runway' (which he did many times while we were on his frequency) I had to give it a double-take - it really did sound like he was saying 'clear to crash'. Spooky eh!

SaturnV

26th Jun 2005, 10:50

Below is from the NTSB preliminary incident report. From the report and the distances cited in the newspaper article, it would appear the US Airways B-737 reached the intersection a second or so after the A-330 had rotated overhead.

On June 9, 2005, about 1940 eastern daylight time, an Airbus A330-301, EI-ORD, operated by Aer Lingus as flight 132 (EIN 132), and a Boeing 737-3B7, N394US, operated by US Airways as flight 1170 (USA 1170) were involved in a runway incursion at General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport (BOS), Boston, Massachusetts. There were no injures to the 12 crew members, and 260 passengers on the Airbus, or the 6 crew members, and 103 passengers on the Boeing. Neither airplane was damaged. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules flight plan had been filed for both flights. Aer Lingus flight 132 was conducted under the provisions of CFR Part 129, and was destined for Shannon, Ireland. US Airways flight 1170 was conducted under the provisions of CFR Part 121, and was destined for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

According to initial information obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), both airplanes were under control of the BOS Air Traffic Control Tower. The Local Control West (LCW) controller was responsible for EIN 132 and the Local Control East (LCE) controller was responsible for USA 1170. At 1939:10, the LCW cleared EIN 132 for takeoff from runway 15R, a 10,083-foot-long, 150-foot-wide, asphalt runway. Five seconds later, the LCE cleared USA 1170 for departure from runway 9, a 7,000-foot-long, 150-foot-wide, asphalt runway.

The co-pilot of US Airways flight 1170 reported that he had called "V1," and then noticed the Aer Lingus A330 rotating just prior to the intersection of runways 15R and 9. He told the captain to "keep it down," and pushed the control column forward. He further stated:

"The Airbus passed overhead our aircraft with very little separation, and once clear of the intersection, the captain rotated, and we lifted off towards the end of the runway. I reported to departure control that we had a near miss at which time Aer Lingus reported 'we concur.'"

Both airplanes were equipped with flight data recorders, which were removed and forwarded to the Safety Board's Vehicle Recorders Division, Washington, DC.

ZQA297/30

26th Jun 2005, 11:44

The UK/US ATC debate could go on forever. Lets face it there are occasional errors everywhere. I have had my share of G/As from both LHR and JFK, usually traffic slow to clear runway, to be fair.

My general perception is that there is a difference in culture. The UK is polite, precise, and seemingly unstressed, the US is informal, production oriented, and can sound stressed under pressure.
There are exceptions to both stereotypes. ( The most laid-back controller I ever came across was an ex-Marine in SJU.) Every time you entered his space there was a little "welcome back XYZ";when you left it "y'all take care now". In between he got the job done with a minimum of fuss and a sardonic sense of humour.

The biggest beef I have with the US ATC system is the use of "non-ICAO" R/T phraseology.
Standard phreaseology was developed so that those whose first language was not english would be able to clearly understand the intent behind various phrases. The same would apply to english speakers in a foreign environment. It is confusing and potentially dangerous to have to learn a number of colloquialisms to suit each country you fly through.

I have found that a number of airports seem to have a policy of "keep em high".
FRA, YYZ, MIA, ZUR all come to mind.
My problem with that is that I am acutely aware that there are many "nervous Nellies" amongst those in the back who pay my salary, and I strive to fly my airplane as smoothly and predictably as possible. A max drag/max rate descent is not what I would want to impose on those important customers in the normal course of events.
I know that I can do it and the aircraft can do it, as can it stop in remarkably short distances, but I do not accept that my reluctance to expose my pax to the edges of the performance envelope in any way indicates that I am a "B team" aviator.

No doubt 411A will disagree with me.

justanotherflyer

26th Jun 2005, 12:34

there was an obviously Irish American on the tower frequency. When he told an aircraft 'clear to cross a runway' (which he did many times while we were on his frequency) I had to give it a double-take - it really did sound like he was saying 'clear to crash'. Spooky eh!

I took vectors in UK airspace recently from a controller who was "obviously" from the Indian subcontinent. But her ethnic orgin was of no relevance whatsoever and didn't seem to be affecting the superb job she was doing. No doubt you will be amazed.

Eh?

PPRuNe Radar

26th Jun 2005, 13:05

we've been trying to work out a formula for years to work out an allowance for atc's (pay for business) alas no solution. you guys need to remember there are many variables which account for business.

The US controllers pay is worked out using a model which factors in various elements such as traffic levels and complexity for each unit. I'm sure you could obtain a copy :ok:

The UK national ATS provider also based its last pay increases on it, although there is some disquiet that the negotiators only used certain elements which favoured the larger units and did not take account of all the factors which the US model uses.

cwatters

26th Jun 2005, 13:06

The Local Control West (LCW) controller was responsible for EIN 132 and the Local Control East (LCE) controller was responsible for USA 1170.

Having two different people responsible for traffic crossing an intersection sounds like a recipie for an accident or perhaps it isn't quite as simple as described?

Ralph Cramden

26th Jun 2005, 16:14

Controllers have a tough job with lots of pressure. I don't blame them when they get frustrated with people who pour sand in the gears and disrupt the flow. Can they do better? Of course. Can we do better? Of course. Incompitent people be they controllers or pilots have no place in our industry.

JW411

26th Jun 2005, 17:26

Idunno:

I have only just found this thread having just got back from my latest travels. You obviously have a great difficulty about flying in the USA and I tend to agree with many of the posters that you should probably stay at home.

411A made the statement that things "are different here" and that is absolutely true. What you have to get your head round is accepting that other countries have different ways of doing things and then find out how to use their system to your best advantage.

When I first started going to the USA there were no such things as SIDs and STARS. On taxi-out at JFK, LAX or ORD the ENTIRE clearance for the ENTIRE route was read out in EVERY DETAIL and, by God, you had to read it back to perfection or you went nowhere!

Nowadays it is quite simple.

What really bothered me was your quote:

"The Carnasie Approach at JFK is criminal - widebody heavies doing finals turns at 200'"

You are obviously a "push button" pilot. I always absolutely loved the Carnasie VOR approach for it gave me a chance to exercise my hand-flying skills and it was always enormous fun.

The most dangerous part of the Carnasie approach is actually the increased fuel burn involved (as opposed to a straight-in on 22L off the Atlantic) and if you cock it up you could easily be hurting for fuel.

Do you seriously imagine that the NY Port Authority are going to move thousands of residents out of Ozone Park just because you find it difficult?

Now just before you retort that I don't know what I'm talking about, I have a CAA and an FAA ATPL rated for the DC-10 and spent 3 years based at JFK for a Part 121 operator.

Idunno

26th Jun 2005, 18:49

I sat at the threshold of 13L a few days ago and watched a steady stream of wide-bodies circling from Canarsie toward us. We sat there for 20 minutes waiting for a break in the flow and permission to line-up.

But it was obvious that whoever was racking up a/c for Canarsie hadn't the slightest interest in giving the tower controller a break to slot the American Eagle ahead of us into the plan. It didn't surprise me then when the tower guy took a chance to line up the ERJ as a BA 747 was rolling around his final turn - probably about 3 miles out. The gap was non-existent, but he risked it.
The tower guy was screaming at a heavy that just landed to take an immediate exit (although he didn't seem to be dawdling) and he then cleared the Eagle ERJ for immediate take-off. It was obviously too late and the ERJ got about 1,000 feet into his roll before the controller told him to stop and the BA to go around - from about 200'.
I sat watching this unfolding with total disgust. I felt sorry for the poor bugger in the BA 747 having just flown all the way round that bloody approach only to now have to do it all again. I thought of the 'nervous nellies' down the back gripping their seats in terror as the power came on and the pull up began. Do you people have ANY IDEA how scared pax are by that?
I also thought of the pax on the ERJ, who had thought all was well and they were on their way, when suddenly the brakes are being slammed on. How were the 'nervous nellies' enjoying that experience?
And how then do the crews explain their actions to those pax on the PA? They have to settle those people down again for another attempt - so do you think telling them the truth helps? ATC f**ked it up folks - but here goes again!

But it didn't end there.
Having had that g/a the tower guy obviously decided to make life easier next time by switching a following American heavy to 13R - the take-off runway. Unfortunately he switched that poor bugger so late, he couldn't make the turn on or get the height off. He went around too.
Guess that Yank pilot didn't bring his A game that day?
More frightened pax!

Two go-arounds and a rejected take-off in 2 minutes. Pretty smart controlling.

All this was totally unnecessary, the wind was light and 22L was available. Even at that, the decision to send us to 13L was done as we taxied out - the t/o runway was 13R. Why this mixing? Probably because some smartarse thought it was a cool idea to 'increase runway utilisation' (hint: it didn't).

I sound angry? YES I AM. These idiots almost killed some friends of mine a few days ago. The clearance between the two a/c in Boston is now revealed to be effectively ZERO. The US Airways a/c had to take evasive action to prevent a certain collision. I'd like to buy that US Airways F/O a beer - and throw one over the idiots in the tower who almost killed everyone. Have you any idea where US ATC's reputation would be right now if that collision had happened? Or what kind of future Aer Lingus or US Airways could look forward to if it had happened?

Those same controllers will be back in a week, abusing pilots verbally on the airwaves - as is their normal practice, and issuing nutty instructions designed to scare passengers and create risk where none existed.

And you dare defend that?

I think your American pride is exagerrated and misplaced.

BusyB

26th Jun 2005, 18:56

As a pilot who has operated worldwide for in excess of 20 yrs (plus 12 yrs in Europe only) I do feel qualified to comment on this thread.

Whilst not commenting on specific airports (JFK, Chicago) I can say that generally US ATC is fine, under stress however they appear pushy as opposed to slick and have on several occasions put "foot in mouth", so to speak instead of controlling the situation.

In the UK in general they are extremely efficient but occasionally seem to create a 'B' team which have been less so.

I would rather have both UK or USA controllers over some of the ones I daily experience.

The extreme comments from both sides of the Atlantic seem to indicate the less professional of our colleagues however much experience they have.

RRAAMJET

26th Jun 2005, 20:03

Deary- me....

Calm down Dunno, I couldn't find you going beserk on the internet over the Milan ground-collision thread.....
"Carnarsie...criminal...mess... " - remember Kai Tak? We Brits created that. I loved it, was based there on 1011's and -400's for years, had several exciting approaches and separations, best fun a man could have with his pants on. Stay calm, prepared for a go-around, back-up plan in hand. Carnarsie's a walk in the park by comparison.
You can always refuse line-up clearance if you're not happy, as per AE flight you commented on; you just end up listening to aggravated New-yoyka controllers berating you. Just remember - YOU'RE in command - not the FAA, although they'd like to try and persuade you otherwise.

Back to topic:

I have found that several of the US airports are now operating in "Southwest Airlines" mode, ie: trying to vector everyone in on the fastest, steepest approach they think you can manage. My neighbour is an FAA Area-Manager; he told me "..we try to help them out - we love them..." yawn.
It used to infuriate me at LAX in particular. The weather would be hazy/foggy and they'd want you at high speed on the slope. Well guess what - you can't slow a 747-400 with a 10 kt tail wind from "at least 200" at the marker and still be stabilized by 1000ft without giving the pax a rough ride, or possibly deviating above the path to slow down. Silly. I used to "request to slow", now I just tell them I'm doing it.
And as for departing...well, ever seen some of the stuff at El Paso with tailwinds off 04 or ABQ? To satisfy who (no prizes)? Yes, you can do it, but why erode margins willingly like that?

Part of the underlying problem in the US is the lack of coherent government policy on Transportation. Laissez-faire economics has led to less-than optimum utilization of resources, including airport capacity. I'm amazed every time I sit waiting in the 777 behind a line of RJ's at ORD or wherever, pi$$ing away fuel. Meanwhile, Senator This-or-that campaigns to let his "pet" lobbying airline access to the same field despite it already operating at over-capacity.

Kudos to the US Air co-pilot. Nasty fright. :ok:

Danny

26th Jun 2005, 21:28

Just to save a few of the posters on this thread from what apparently could lead to a coronary ailment, it was I who deleted some of the more petty posts. It obviously doesn't take a lot for some of you to feel aggrieved by the mere mention of an incident and then having someone who is obviously unable to hold back the emotional stress of having his or her countrymen maligned compare their own nationals method of controlling aircraft.

It is shameful the way some of you so called 'professionals' can descend into petty, xenophobic rants. This thread was starting to look like a catfight between Idunno, West Coast and a 'tag-along' bunch of spotter 'experts' on 'ATC for Dummies'. :rolleyes: For heavens sake, just try counting to 10 before typing in your replies if something has 'offended' your sensibilities. Losing the plot and replying with infantile comparisons and slurs isn't going to win any arguments.

There are a lot of sensible replies on here which show the maturity, professionalism and experience of the posters. ATC is different at every single airport I fly into. Some are better than others but there's no way I'd spit my dummy out and paint every controller and their system with one broad brush. This US vs UK or Euro willy waving by a few posters on here is embarrassing and extremely petty and childish. Obviously some of you have never tried to get into some Greek, Turkish, Spanish, African airports when there are more than a few a/c arriving at the same time and there is CB activity, low vis and terrain to deal with. Euro bucket and spade brigade pilots have a lot to deal with too without some of the horror stories the main antagonists in this thread are trying to use to trash the others ATC system and controllers.

Debate the pros and cons of the BOS system by all means. Use comparisons with other airports, anywhere in the world. Just remember that if you are going to soil your pants with insults and petty xenophobic rants then you will be wasting your time as I will just delete the posts that serve only to inflame and provide nothing to the debate.

Sunfish

26th Jun 2005, 21:34

Why don't the controllers at that airport go back one hundred years to rasilway practice? Simply cut out a large wooden Tee shape. And pass it to each other. To clear someone for takeoff you have to be holding the Tee.

RRAAMJET

26th Jun 2005, 22:17

That would be the " Boston Tee Party " then, I presume....?

Idunno

27th Jun 2005, 00:09

RRAAMJET, of course you are right about Milan! But many Italian airports are 3rd world standard and you expect trouble.

But on the other hand - I've never heard an Italian controller losing his head and abusing pilots on the airwaves like you do every day in the US. On the whole the Italians are pretty cool headed compared to the Yanks, and thats really saying something - they're Mediterraneans after all.

I agree with everything else you said. Infrastructurally US airports are pretty 3rd world too. You just tend to expect better from the richest, most powerful, most technologically advanced ENGLISH SPEAKING nation on earth.

Its dissapointing.

eastern wiseguy

27th Jun 2005, 01:38

Well done to the US airways guys...without KNOWING what really happened it seems like they saved the day.

The SYSTEM at KBOS seems to have failed.Systems should fail SAFE. At KBOS the chain leading to disaster was broken only(it appears) by the quick thinking of the 737 crew.That is not how an Air Traffic Control System should work.I suspect that the managers ,especially those who signed the "modus operandum" at KBOS off will have a lot of thinking and reflecting to do ...and it is THEY who should ultimately carry the can.

Thoughts are with both crews.....and the guys in the tower...no one EVER does that on purpose.

pprecious

27th Jun 2005, 03:44

Did both flight crews continue their respective journeys? and if so I wonder how long it took for all their heart rates and concentration to get back to normal?

Well done to the US F/O, looks like fast thinking and actions saved the day...

West Coast

27th Jun 2005, 06:32

Dunno

Curious isn't it how you can come up with scenarios just when you need them for this thread.

I have a half dozen space shuttle landings myself. Problem is no one believes me.

I'll ask again. If you think it to be so bad, why do you imperil your passengers to something you believe to be dangerous? From the amount of things that seem to surround you in US airspace, traffic everywhere, third world airports, ATC out to get you, why don't you make a stand, sack up and say its too damn dangerous to go?
Do you have a greater responsibility as a pilot than to your passengers? I hope your obligation to your company doesn't override your obligation to those who pay the bills.

Human Factor

27th Jun 2005, 07:14

If you think it to be so bad, why do you imperil your passengers to something you believe to be dangerous?

If I don't, someone else will have to. Until regulatory authorities around the world insist upon changes (which we know they won't), nothing will change and we'll still be having this debate in a decade.

AMF

27th Jun 2005, 10:19

Sorry Danny, that some of us responded to IDunno's broad-brushstroke, extrapolated Yank-bashing drawn from one incident. Since you've removed my post, and I'm neither "IDunno" or "West Coast", I can only assume you consider me to be one of the "tag-along spotter experts" you've referred to.

(25+ years of pilot operations in the U.S., Europe, Africa, and Middle East notwithstanding...10 years based outside the U.S).

I see, however, that IDunno's rants still grace the thread, non-deleted. In just his latest post (which also remains), he's stated that U.S. controllers "lose their head", that they "abuse pilots every day", and that "infastructurally U.S. airports are 3rd world". And let's not forget his emboldened inference that they can't speak English.

And this coming from someone who's experience with U.S. airports is obviously limited to a very few and only occasionally, and I surmise his experience in general as well, given his obvious consternation at the whole thing. Yet he is supposedly so "expert" and "non-xenophobic" and posts "offer something for debate" that his they remain?

Most humorous, was his wailing (or rather, whining) assertion that this was a "Yank-dominated thread", because his initial Yank-bashing rants illicited responses.

Sorry Danny, but when someone like IDunno is asserting with psuedo-authority to whoever in the public is choosing to read this thread that the entire U.S. ATC system is DANGEROUS, UNSAFE, AND ASKING HIM TO DO THINGS HIS AIRCRAFT CAN'T DO, then he'll be called on his B.S. THE STATISTICAL FACTS REGARDOMG AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS AND ATC-GENERATED ACCIDENTS DO NOT BEAR IDUNNO'S ASSERTIONS OUT.

Yet, his posts containing these imaginary, derogatory, and scare-mongering statements....remain. They remain for the traveling public to read.

Danny, when you delete posts for what you see as perpetuating conflict, why don't you delete the source that generates the whole affair, especially when it's nothing more than a thinly-veiled, pro-nationalistic attempt to scare the public?

egbt

27th Jun 2005, 10:44

IMF

Tempted to agree with you [re deleting the source] but if he gets zapped then he simply reregisters under a different name (or names) and probably becomes an even bigger pain.

perhaps we all should issue more toll alerts and just ignore the rants - from both sides

:(

edited to qualify agreement

Farrell

27th Jun 2005, 11:18

Ummmmm....have any of you even bothered to read what Danny wrote?

SaturnV

27th Jun 2005, 11:48

pprecious, both flights continued to their destinations. The NTSB report indicates that the flight data recorders were removed from both planes (presumably this was done at the destination airport, or soon thereafter).

That the FDRs were removed at all, given this was a near-collision on a runway, probably reflects just how close the two planes came to colliding. From the FDRs and the ground radar trace, the NTSB should be able to reconstruct how far apart, in space and time, the two planes were when they crossed the runway intersection.

ZQA297/30

27th Jun 2005, 12:11

Oh my, thank God for old-fashioned mk.1 aviators in the cockpit. This will postpone pilot-less cockpits by years.
Well done guys.

jewitts

27th Jun 2005, 13:55

Speaking as a passenger who frequents pprune occasionally, this thread scares me witless. Having flown into BOS on the 10th June (the next day) and being blissfully unaware of this near disaster, I actually made a comment to my wife how dangerous it seemed, that flights were landing almost simultaneously on similar tracks and that take-offs were ocurring from crossed runways. This purely from observing out of the window of the AA Eagle flight I was on after flying to JFK from Europe. I must say that I only ever have seen this happening in the US e.g. JFK, LAX and BOS but I always assumed there was some foolproof (Advanced) system to prevent collisions. Apparently not, and to hear that 2 controllers were communicating on different frequencies and apparently not to each other is to say the least, asking for a disater to happen.

In my view the whole of the American air travel industry is in deep crisis. It's not just the airlines who are close to "bankrupt". Some of these previous (Bashing) comments obviously have some truth behind them. US ATC is sometimes stretched beyond breaking point. I guess an accident will happen sooner or later, once again scaring the unusually timid American passengers away from flying. From the passenger angle, I can tell you that the rest of the entire sytem is the same, stretched beyond the limit. From the surly check-in staff (all US airlines) who seem badly trained (and badly paid?); to the baggage handling systems which are poorly designed and poorly maintained; to the terminal buildings that are filthy dirty and totally inadequate, to airport infrastructures and designs that quite honestly baffle me, to the passenger information systems which are totally useless; to the aircraft which are mostly past their use-by date, to the "iffy" service given by the flight attendants, to the security personnel that haven't a clue about human dignity. (Don't start me on that!) If it were an equal choice, I would stop travelling to the US altogether. :(

KATLPAX

27th Jun 2005, 14:42

Jewitts, your second paragraph is such a waste. Whats the point other than to inflame? Generalizations with no fact behind. This is the kind of post that will lead to nothing more than us vs. them, "when i fly into xyz, blah blah blah...something Danny had to "scold" the professionals on the forum for. We as pax should be even more aware of our contributions, facts and tone.

SASless

27th Jun 2005, 14:58

Lets throw some fuel on the fire about the BOS near miss....

Avnews this morning had several articles about ATC errors and near misses and the lack of FAA response to them until a Whistle Blower sounded the alarm.

The link is:

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/420-full.html#190038

U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TRANSMITS REPORT OF COVER-UP OF OPERATIONAL ERRORS BY FAA PERSONNEL AT DALLAS FORT WORTH AIRPORT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 6/23/05
CONTACT: CATHY DEEDS, 202-254-3607, [email protected]

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) today transmitted a report to the President and Congress detailing findings and recommendations regarding allegations of a substantial and specific danger to public safety. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is charged with moving America safely, but a Department of Transportation report confirms that air traffic personnel systematically covered up operational errors at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) for seven years, thereby jeopardizing air traffic safety.

The whistleblower, Anne R. Whiteman, an 18-year air traffic controller at DFW, alleged that air traffic controllers and management at the DFW Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) routinely covered up serious operational errors and deviations involving aircraft. She disclosed to OSC that many incidents involving aircraft flying too close to each other, on average once a month, were often neither reported nor investigated, in violation of FAA’s Air Traffic Quality Assurance Order. This was a substantial and specific danger to public safety. Ms. Whiteman also described two specific incidents which should have been reported and provided data reflecting operational errors.

The Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General (DOT OIG) investigated and substantiated Ms. Whiteman’s allegations. Their March 2005 report revealed an improper management practice in place for seven years that was responsible for underreporting and the failure to investigate operational errors. The DOT OIG concluded that the cover-ups, whether due to management policy or whether they occur on an incidental basis, represent safety deficiencies and undermine the public’s confidence in the air traffic control system.

Under FAA policy, employees are supposed to report potential errors to the supervisor or controller-in-charge for investigation. The OIG found, however, that the language of the Quality Assurance Order was ambiguous on the requirement about use of playback equipment used to investigate suspected operational errors.

Under DFW TRACON policy, investigation of suspected operational errors was limited to asking the controller involved whether separation had been lost. Under this honor system, if the controller responded in the negative, no further investigation was done. Only if the controller acknowledged a loss, or possible loss of separation, were the playback tools used to review the incident and determine whether an operational error occurred. This local policy ran counter to FAA national policy and resulted in significant underreporting of operational errors.

A number of corrective actions were taken as a result of DOT’s investigation. DFW’s Air Traffic Manager issued a memorandum directing the immediate use of playback tools to investigate all suspected operational errors to correct DFW’s improper practice, and bring the facility in compliance with FAA national policy. DFW has been placed in a “no notice review” status for two years. FAA reassigned the facility quality assurance manager and selected a replacement. The facility manager, operations managers and supervisors were placed on Opportunity to Demonstrate Performance (ODP) status for failing to abide by FAA national policy on operational errors. Individual controllers were given training and placed on ODPs for failing to self-report errors, and one controller was decertified for committing a previously unreported operational error.

The Special Counsel determined that the agency’s report contains all the information required by statute and the agency’s findings appear to be reasonable.

Special Counsel Scott J. Bloch said, “It may be hard for the public to appreciate how difficult it is for whistleblowers to report wrongdoing in the government. Ms. Whiteman should be commended for bringing to light these serious operational errors that threaten our very air safety and security. Indeed, the system that protects our air service depends on the reporting of operational errors. There may have been incentives at FAA to underreport these errors, and now as a result of this disclosure, we hope those incentives have been or will be eliminated nationwide.”

OSC Analysis of DOT OIG Report

OSC Transmittal Letter to the President

jewitts

27th Jun 2005, 15:08

OK I take back the second paragraph. Sorry for wasting time and diverting attention! Clearly the safety implications are more important than an "us & them" discussion.;)

AMF

27th Jun 2005, 17:02

Well, for a supposedly "dangerous and outdated" ATC system...supposedly inferior to even the Italians'....it certainly moves a lot of aircraft without mating any two. More aircraft then the rest of the world combined I might add, and in routine severe weather conditions that would bring other, meteorlogically placid places to a screeching halt when the first echo appears or the airway might become mildly congested. This is not supposition, I watch it happen. The Eurocontrol system is designed to keep people on the ground.

The U.S. ATC system is based on a structure designed for flexibility, especially from the Rocky Mountains eastward because the frequency of convective weather patterns necessitate it if any amount of aircraft are going to fly. The TRACONS deal with the same issues and concentrated traffic, with less airspace. NY TRACON not only deals with EWR, JFK, and LGA, but also HPN, TEB, and sits in the middle of the Northeast Corridor. On a good day, it's busier than anywhere else on earth. On a bad weather day, perhaps with lines of CBs bearing down from the West as they do every few days or so for half the year, they adjust, because everyone from Wash DC to BOS is having to do the same.

For those supposed "experts" on the other side of the pond who think you could impose the UK/Eurocontrol system in that environment and have it work, then you've obviously never sat in an ATC facility and watched your own, let alone any in the U.S.

But when it does breach it's own criteria for safety and loss of seperation as in the BOS incident, through self-reporting, whistleblowing, and constant review by the FAA, NTSB, and OIG, the U.S. ATC system airs it's dirty laundry...even to the public.. and tries to self-correct. Non-reporting in other countries' systems does NOT equate to being "Safer" or that events don't occur.

Having flown extensively in the UK ATC system, please don't try and tell me that the ATC mistakes I've experienced never happened. They have, and I expect they will again. I just don't indict the entire system for a lapse in human performance when otherwise it works for the UKs/Europe's semi-busy, but placid environment.

RRAAMJET

27th Jun 2005, 18:35

Jewitt, don't be so hard on yourself even though you were only slightly off topic. Greater fouls have been committed in the past.

There is more than a shred of truth about your observations, and I worry how the US industry is ever going to crawl out its funk. Money that should have been earmarked for aviation improvements has been spent elsewhere over successive Administrations, notably the Aviation Improvement Fund dating back many years. The FAA generally do a commendable job despite this.

Indeed, much of the infrastructure and equipment is elderly and crumbling, (myself included!). All the junior personnel have been furloughed; there are precious few orders for new aircraft and the US pax fleet is ageing, with only a couple of airline exceptions adding up to perhaps 20% of the fleet. Taxi down the taxiways at Newark, LGA, JFK, DFW, LAX, DET and try avoiding all the potholes, metal planking, inop. blue lights, etc.

It can't go on, but "W" would rather continue spending on his Holy Wars than look to looming domestic issues. :mad:

Spitoon

27th Jun 2005, 19:45

It's rather sad to see how this thread is progressing.

I speak as a mere controller. I've only worked in the UK. But every airport is different. They each have problems / challenges for controllers just as they do for pilots - I have no doubt this ois the case the world over. Some airports are busier than others. Some have more passengers than others. Some have more parking stands than others. So what?

The pilot of an aeroplane doesn't care about the x thousand other flights that go through the airport each year. The passengers don't care about the millions of pax that are handled. They only care about the one flight they're on. And their main care is that it's safe.

So it doesn't matter which airport we're talking about or which side of the Atlantic (or Pacific or whatever) it is. It doesn't matter what size or type of aircraft it is. The procedures that are applied by ATC (or in other examples, by the pilots) are what matters.

On the basis of what is currently known about this incident, there appears to be a hazard that would be obvious to anyone doing a hazard analysis on the procedures. How the hazard is managed properly is what is important - and who it is or where it is is more or less irrelevant.

What we should be concentrating on is how to stop it happening again - ever.

For everyone's sake.

JW411

27th Jun 2005, 21:05

Spitoon:

I could not agree with you more. Every airfield does indeed have its own problems and JFK and BOS are no exceptions. I have actually taken the trouble to visit NY Centre and that was an education. Do not expect to see many controllers wearing smart suits and ties but those boys and girls work their butts off trying to keep the traffic flowing in very difficult circumstances.

One of my priceless memories of my time based at JFK was one morning when they were landing 13L (Carnasie) taking off on 13R and trying to slot in some arrivals from the Pond on 22L.

The weather was pretty decent and Speedbird Concorde *** checked in on Tower frequency at the outer marker for 22L.

"Call me when you have the runway in sight" says the Tower.

"Dear Boy, I really don't see why I should have to call you when I have the airfield in sight when I have already been cleared to land in accordance with ICAO Blah, Blah, Blah, Sub-Annexe Blah, Blah, Blah". (NB: He obviously didn't even realise that landing clearances in that part of the world are conditional).

"Speedbird Concorde *** you are clear to land and after landing make a special point of calling me on 123.4"

Needless to say, everybody in the congo line went to 123.4.

It went something like this:

"Listen up carefully Buddy, the reason I want YOU to tell ME that you have the airport in sight is so that I then have a reasonable expectation of actually being able to see you and then I can arrange my departures and arrivals on 13R and 13L for the rest of the world and still allow you to land straight in from the Pond on 22L.

Now if you are unhappy with that solution then you can continue with the Carnasie VOR approach to 13L which I very much doubt you have enough fuel to complete".

The grovelling apology from "Speedbird Concorde ***" was wonderful to hear.

Make no mistake, these guys do a fantastic job and make very few mistakes. (Go arounds happen at LGW and LHR frequently and are usually caused by pilots).

I totally agree that we all have to learn from the serious incident at BOS but that is no excuse to have a go at the entire US Air Traffic service which I have found to be pretty damned good.

Seat 32F

27th Jun 2005, 22:00

As a mere passive observer all I can say is that all the talk and bluster about how good the various ATCs are is all fine and dandy, but doesn't actually address the hard fact that what would probably have been one of the world's worst air disasters was only averted, not by these controllers at all, but simply by the fact that, thank God, the US Air FO was on the ball.

What if the Aer Lingus crew had spotted the US Air flight a couple of seconds earlier and decided that they too should stay low?

It would be unbelievable that something as fundamental as this situation could ever be allowed to happen in any airfield, let alone one of the busiest in the world.

So, what I would like to know is, exactly what measures have been introduced to prevent this ever happening again? Someone earlier suggested the adoption of the old railway controllers baton method and this was dismissed as a wind-up. But at least it is more or less foolproof. Surely there has to be some sort of analogous method?

ChewyTheWookie

27th Jun 2005, 23:10

JW411,

Since when did they use Concorde as part of the callsign?

Dockjock

28th Jun 2005, 00:23

er...since time immemorial

similar to the "heavy" suffix it serves to remind ATC that the type may require special handling with respect to approach speeds, noise, wake turbulence and so forth.

millhouse21

28th Jun 2005, 00:43

The vast bulk of my flying experience has been within the US but I did have the privelege to fly in Japan for a few years. That experience taught me the value of standardized comm and I do cringe occasionally hearing some of the things said over radios in the US. I have also been guilty of this but I do try to stay "standard." What distresses me the most is when (pretty rarely) there is some foreign carrier who is clearly having trouble understanding but the controller just yells a little and then hands them off. Of course, this doesn't happen very often and overall I think ATC does an excellent job. By comparison, the Japanese ATC folks were VERY cautious and had extremely stringent requirements for traffic separation. They were so cautious that it was frequently infuriating. Of course, I do recall one or two incidents in Japan involving traffic separation.
My point is that ANY system (particularly a complex one) involving humans will fail at some point. Another poster mentioned that they should be designed to fail safe. I think that's a very good point and much more relevant than "who's ATC is the best." Clearly the system at KBOS was not designed that way. How could it be done better? I don't know given the constraints of geography at that location. Perhaps if we did a risk vs benefit analysis, we'd find that is the best way to do it. Maybe not. I don't know what the answer is. I do find it interesting, though, that it only took a few posts before somebody said "It's because the USA (atc) sucks."

NZLeardriver

28th Jun 2005, 02:50

It would be interesting how this thread would have progressed if the incident had been in Ireland with the same two planes and crews.
I imagine many of the American posters would be making much of the 'hero' copilot that saved thousands from death amid the failures of the substandard European ATC.

The crap some people have been posting about bringing your A game, or if you dont like it dont come here, is not really relevant. If someone has some safety concerns, they should be heard and considered. If their concerns are valid, it shouldn't matter where they are from.
Would that attitudes shown here be the same if some of the posters (Idunno for example) were from the US?
I am getting the impression that some people are in defense mode here, defending at all costs without really considering the issues.
The lack of professionalism being shown on this thread is amazing.

Avman

28th Jun 2005, 04:44

Good post millhouse21. I'm not interested where it happened, only WHY and HOW CAN IT BE AVOIDED in the future. American controllers may do things differently to us Europeans but I'm certain that SAFE & expeditious handling of traffic is their top priority. Europe or USA, procedures will have flaws and these will surface from time to time. We learn and we move on. My sympathy goes out to the two controllers involved. Just how close this may have been to a catastrophe will haunt them for years to come. They came on duty that day to do a good job in almost constant high pressure environment.

jd4iron

28th Jun 2005, 04:45

ATL does more passengers, but ORD does more take- offs and landings. Those little r-jets take as much time and effort as a jumbo jet but do not have as many people. I still would not like to run into one of them.

Ignition Override

28th Jun 2005, 04:56

I want to apologize to any ATC controllers in case some of my previous comments are judgemental or overly critical of the US ATC system. If there is political pressure from those outside of the ATC system, then my apology does not apply to them. You controllers all do a superb job, which few if any pilots can comprehend-even in good weather. One major problem for all of us consists of the huge number of blocked radio calls. This, along with other crew-concept failures, contributed to the nightmare at Tenerife in '77, based on a tv program and written reports.

Here in the US, if a pilot replies with the classic "roger wilco", he is almost laughed at by the other pilot-especially if the FO replies with this. We consciously or subc. try to fit in to our own "systems"/ corporate cultures, and try to avoid ridicule from those with whom we work (or play).
Many of us tend to abbreviate read-backs, in my case partly because an extended, detailed acknowledgement of a descent with a heading plus airspeed change will result in the last part blocked anyway by the next person (usually a pilot) waiting for his/her turn to check in, or request a heading change around a cumulonimbus cell, assuming that the altitude change will be the only reply from the previous pilot, for example. I would never omit a detailed reply to hold short at runway **R or hold in position, takeoff etc. But we often have no idea if part of our transmission is blocked, although these are the most critical clearances that I can imagine. Having very similar flight numbers for "Southeast Airlines 292" and (...blocked call or late transmission...) [North]"---East 282" causes many problems on the same frequencies-this is quite frustrating and hazardous.

As for ATC versus pilot perspectives, we can only hear/see things from inside our airplane, and only see a part of the picture that our controllers do.

It is difficult for me to understand the need for multiple runway changes (LAX) while in a very slick airplane that refuses to slow down when on an arrival that has no level-offs. That is my biggest gripe, except for the available technology which could have prevented many blocked radio transmissions (too expensive or too time-consuming to install?) . If I ever decide to begin and manage to finish training on the Airbus, I hope that at least two legs on IOE will go to LAX.

Of course much of this might have nothing to do with the mishap at BOS.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

28th Jun 2005, 06:38

<<"Dear Boy, I really don't see why I should have to call you when I have the airfield in sight when I have already been cleared to land in accordance with ICAO Blah, Blah, Blah, Sub-Annexe Blah, Blah, Blah". (NB: He obviously didn't even realise that landing clearances in that part of the world are conditional).>>

I worked with Concorde for most of it's operational life; spoke to the crews almost every working day and met a few of them. I seriously doubt the truth of this story and suspect that it was dreamt up and passed around a million times.

Can anyone - pilot or controller - seriously imagine a pilot making such a statement on the R/T?

And, yes, the word "Concorde" was always part of the callsign..

Capt Pit Bull

28th Jun 2005, 07:58

AMF,

Your mate and Company probably didn't get any feedback because it's pointless for ATC to spend the time doing so, even when they review it. Perhaps the review found that your mate wasn't at an assigned speed. Maybe your mate expects an apology because maybe he thinks he's operationally perfect. But maybe your mate helped create the conflict in the first place. Maybe, your story is nonsense.

I find this point of view concerning. What you appear to be saying that a review could find an error on the part of the pilot, and this would make it a non ATC error, and that therefore there would be no point sharing the findings of the review with the company in question.

Most folks I fly with are all to aware of their own ability to make an error and would welcome the feedback to see what mistake they had made in order to avoid repetition. Thats the whole point of a safety reporting process surely. Or am I missing something?

CPB

JW411

28th Jun 2005, 08:18

HD:

Believe me, it happened. I heard it with my own two ears and so did everyone else in the congo line.

AMF

28th Jun 2005, 08:29

HeathDir.....

Judging by the superior-attitude/Yanks-are-presumed-to-be-stupid posts rampant on this thread (still non-deleted) regarding ATC issues in spite of factual, historical evidence to the contrary, I not only find it believable, I find the related R/T from Concorde's cockpit probable.

It's completely within the realm of possiblity that he shared the same attitude....that he possessed an all-knowing grasp on the Big ATC Picture, with the same ingrained derision for anything he considered to be "non-standard" to ICAO ops or phraseology as many here do, and use(d) it to jump on as evidence for incompetence. Of course, it could have been IDunno...flustered to the point of breaking about not being spoon-fed track miles.

Personally, I think it's a funny story. But I doubt that it was made-up...you see, nobody in the U.S. would realize what a major insult (so major you use it as evidence it couldn't have happened!) the lapse in R/T (and not ATC awareness) would mean in terms of embarrasment not only to BA, but indeed to the entire cadre of UK pilots worldwide. It would be an insult to what is the proudest part of any flight...how they sound on the radio. This point is far too obscure for Americans to develop a joke about.

We just don't get things like that. After all, we still sling non-ICAO phraseology like "Heavy" around in the hopes somebody else might concerned with triflings such as wake turbulence (apparently, it doesn't exist in Europe, so no worries!). It's also nice to see that recently JAA ops require one to follow an RA unless there's a visual confirmation of separation. I'm so glad to see they've finally made it into the 21st century.

And the next time I'm instructed (ICAO-style) to "Line up and wait..behind the landing aircraft" while it's still on a 3 mile final, I'll just keep hoping that nobody ever transmits over that last little bit of important information if the vis isn't good. After all, I've personally done 2 G/As that I can remember because the guy holding short didn't get the last bit.

I'm still waiting the report and feedback to me for those G/As (which, thanks to this thread I've just learned should be forthcoming). After all, someone here assured me that when things like that occur, they're dealt with immediately by the proper authories and changes made poste haste followed by written reports because (I've also learned) nothing in UK/Eurocontrol/ICAO ops remains unrefined to anything less than the highest point of safety, and they swing into regulatory action after every glitch and efficiently process it out. So I was told, anyway, by the same people who knowingly presume that nothing like this exists in unsafe Cowboyland.

In fact, these same authorities have such an all-encompassing, enforcing-to-effect-change power, the latest rumor is that France's ATC might actually begin to be held to speaking ICAO-standard English about the time we launch the first Starship Enterprise.

But I'm sure I've overstepped my bounds again. Citing comparative deficiencies Eastward instead of Westward is....well, it just isn't done.

My apologies, and I realize now deletion is probably imminent.

CPB....

As it turns out, his story was nonsense. He stated himself that the the vector his mate observed on the ILS was "legal" (his words). The "incident" was in fact, not an incident after all. If minimum separation wasn\'t lost (500\' alt in this case, both aircraft under positive control, and in Class B airspace like JFK), a quick review of the tapes would show it. There\'s nothing more to be done.

That this was an event requiring a report to his company is subjective policy, and irrelevent. That this event was worrisome to the point of desiring a follow-up by his mate and complaining to the world about it, is also subjective, and irrelevent to the issue of ATC safety. It merely speaks to his mate\'s comfort level at seeing something he rarely sees (most of us lost that apprehension long ago when flying in truly busy airspace). That\'s not ATC\'s problem...their task is separation, and in Class B for both IFR and VFR traffic, VFR traffic frequently assigned +500\' altitudes.

I can\'t even imagine what would go through his mate\'s head flying a garden-variety ILS PRM approach with parallel traffic, minimum separation in all quadrants. With a hand-flown breakout maneuver if necessary. If IDunno\'s threshold of comfort and "expertise" tells him that everyday arrivals into JFK are nerve-wracking and "dangerous", wait until he has to fly one of those!

Del Prado

28th Jun 2005, 09:16

AMF, the correct phraseology is "behind the landing ***, line up and wait runway **". (precisely to obviate the risk you refer to)
The Heavy prefix is not used in UK because ATC provide vortex wake spacing.

Stick to the facts, there's a better chance people will listen to you.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

28th Jun 2005, 10:04

Glad someone picked up that poor R/T quoted by AMF!

Re: the Concorde incident, all I can say is that I am amazed and can only assume some pilots must change dramatically when they enter US airspace. That sort of behaviour is unheard of at Heathrow (as far as I know!). I've experienced thousands of "non-standard" R/T incidents but I have never heard of an R/T exchange like that quoted. There are bound to be times when little niggles come across, but it seems totally out of character for any pilot to behave like that. Most of my dealings with crews - and I worked more than a million flights in my career - were polite and with standard R/T. Humourous interludes were not unknown - and greatly appreciated - but the sort of verbal haranguing by both sides quoted above I have never experienced. The pilot was obviously wrong, but ATC should have him telephone to discuss the matter rather than mouthing off on the R/T for all to hear. I'd stilll like to see a proper transcript because I know only too well how stories get changed as time goes by...

Incidentally, I'm not biased for or against any nationality. I've worked with American pilots since the mid-60s. Always found them courteous and hold them in high regard.

fly bhoy

28th Jun 2005, 10:18

I'm not going to join in the slagging off of other controllers here, but what seems worrying to me is that people in the US seem to equate number of a/c moved with standard of ATC, ie more=better.

I would be of the opinion (as I suspect the passengers would be) that its not the quantity of traffic shifted, but the manner in which its done. Just because you can move x ammounts of a/c in an hour/month/year, doesn't mean you do it safely.

I could easily sit doing departures and just say "clear for take off, clear for take off, clear for take off" with scant regard for departure separations or vortex wake, and shift a hell of a lot more traffic, but in my opinion that would make me a worse controller!!

And saying its the pilots responsibility to accept such clearances or "stay away" is just compounding the mistakes!!!

My tuppence worth.

FB:ok:

H.Finn

28th Jun 2005, 10:20

Del Prado, the really correct way to say it is "behind the landing *** line up and wait runway **, behind". Twice the behind, to avoid it to be blocked neither in the beginning, nor in the end of the transmission.

Bengerman

28th Jun 2005, 10:27

Talk about handbags at 5 paces!!

Fact is there are fundamental differences between ALL ATC units/airports/nations/centres etc.

The purpose of ICAO procedures is to ensure that all pilots and all ATC officers are singing from the same songsheet, irrespective of the geographic location they occupy. It is clear that ICao is currently failing in this regard.

In terms of the USA there are airports who perform better on a day to day basis than others, this is often due to runway layout, sometimes apparently due to better training and more professional approach, often due to traffic levels and often due to proximity to other busy airfields.

However, I feel the main problems with ALL uS airfields are the systems and procedures in place. By this I mean such things as conditional clearances ie. you are 4th on the approach but are still given landing clearance, no problem on a gin clear day but a real problem on a gin clear night!

Atlanta 8th November 1994, night, good vis a B727 landed on top of a Beechcraft which was slow clearing the runway (perhaps he didn't bring his "A" game!). The B727 had been cleared to land but could not see the Beech in the lights of the runway, deaths on the Beech resulted. That person died not because of any particular human failing but because of the procedure!

Airports like BOS with cross runways are also a danger, there are many of these in the US. (SFO, ORD, JFK, MIA to name but a few, very busy ones). The way to make these place safer is to put in place safer procedures, not more dangerous ones like LAHSO!

The failure at BOS, whilst a human failing also highlights what is a very dangerous system of ATC operation. Things DO need to change in the US, for the benefit of ALL aviators and passengers who are at the mercy of some dubious practices

SIDSTAR

28th Jun 2005, 12:23

To PPRUNE et al,

Why do you allow such diatribe and rubbish to be spouted by those who want to hijack the thread.

Please guys keep to the topic whci was a near collision. If you want to discuss the merits or otherwise of US ATC versus ATC elsewhere then start a thread to do just that.

Here's one who's fed up with decent threads being hijacked by people who have a different agenda. I'm all for freedom of speech - in the appropriate place. By the way I've never flown in the US so I have no knowledge of how godd or bad ATC is at busy airports. However, between ATC and pilots it seems that you're all doing quite well as very few of you manage to hit each other.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

28th Jun 2005, 12:33

Del Prado. When was the phraseology changed back from "After the landing" to "Behind the landing"??? If is has changed then it was a highly dangerous move IMHO.

H.Finn. Presumably you are not a controller?

brookbj

28th Jun 2005, 12:45

Thanks SIDSTAR - I was wondering when this might get back to the topic being discussed.

I am neither pilot not ATC - just an enthusiast and infrequent traveller (many times to the US over the last 25 years)

Seems to me that someone with a headset on in a warm tower messed up big time, and all credit to the US Air crew for spotting the impending disaster and doing something about it. I hope their laundry service managed to get their uniform trousers cleaned.

I wonder if any of the poor self-loading cargo on either flight saw what was unfolding before their eyes? Scary.......

Del Prado

28th Jun 2005, 12:46

Hi Bren, I was using AMF's own words but using them in the correct order. You are of course correct, it is "after the landing...."

(I've never really done tower)

Hope you're having fun in your retirement.

Capt.KAOS

28th Jun 2005, 13:33

[lurk mode off]

In 38 years flying as pax I've experienced 2 Go Arounds; HKG (Kai Tak) and...yes... BOS. Both times the captain announced that the runway was blocked by another airplane.

[/lurk mode on]

H.Finn

28th Jun 2005, 15:49

This is going way off topic, but anyway. I'm not a controller, just a humble ATP. I just checked with a very senior ATCO and he agrees with me that the correct phraseology is "behind", and this said as the first word and the last word in the transmission. Whether he is right or wrong, and whether this is safe or not, I can not judge. Maybe someone with current manuals can shed some light on this?

JW411

28th Jun 2005, 16:14

At my current home base all controllers religiously use the word "Behind" at the beginning and the end.

Such as: "Behind the landing 747 line up and wait behind".

TopBunk

28th Jun 2005, 16:22

From the UK CAP413 - Radiotelephony Manual

1.7.7 Conditional phrases will not be used for movements affecting the active runway(s),
except when the aircraft or vehicles concerned are seen by the controller and pilot.
Conditional clearances are to relate to one movement only and, in the case of landing
traffic, this must be the first aircraft on approach. A conditional instruction shall be
given as follows:
a) callsign;
b) the condition;
c) identification of subject of the condition;
d) the instruction.

The example given is:

ATC: Fastair 345, after the landing DC9, line up

Having said that, as others have said, ATC should be failsafe, and it would appear that lessons have to be learnt at KBOS, the lessons may well be applicable USA-wide or even worldwide. The important thing is that the lesson is learnt by everyone and everywhere, 'cos we can't afford a repeat of a serious incident like this.

We (the system) got away with this one - just - thanks to alert pilot(s) and some very good luck - let's learn from it quickly and not be so pompous as to say that it couldn't happen where I work.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

28th Jun 2005, 18:03

H.Finn - Sorry your Very Senior Controller is wrong and you should tell him so. (Not surprising as most "Very Senior" controllers don't hold validations!)

I just checked the very latest Manual of ATC Services and the word "behind" is not used in any ATC instruction. For a conditional clearance the correct phrase is "After the departing..."

JW411 - I can only assume that you and your colleagues have some special dispensation at your unit, but be aware that saying "behind" is mega-dangerous!

JW411

28th Jun 2005, 18:20

HD:

I'm sorry but you are assuming that my home base is in UK. It is actually on the other side of La Manche and I am pretty sure that our controllers are operating EXACTLY in accordance with THEIR ATC manual.

In any event, "Behind the landing 747 line up and wait behind" is very self explanatory and I cannot see how it could be mis-interpreted.

Not everyone in the world operates in accordance with CAP 413 nor do I suppose that many of them have even heard of it.

I realise that you are shocked by my Concorde story but I think you just have to realise that things are handled quite differently in other parts of the world.

Things are very civilised in UK airspace but, believe me, if you decide to have a go at a JFK controller, then you had better be prepared to reap the whirlwind!

brimstone

28th Jun 2005, 18:27

The international standard phraseology uses the word "behind" at the start and the end of the line up clearance in the way described by H Finn. The UK has filed a difference with ICAO and uses the word "after" and only at the beginning of the line-up clearance.

JW411

28th Jun 2005, 18:36

brimstone:

Thank you for that; so it would appear that UK ATC is out of step with the rest of the world. So much for standardisation!

HD:

So could you just tell me now who exactly has got the special dispensation?

H.Finn

28th Jun 2005, 18:52

Thank you brimstone & JW411. So my kidneys, or whatever I have between my ears, still work at least partly.
Talking about standardisation, flying into Luton, which I used to do a lot, I wondered why they always told me to "descend with the glide", never cleared me for the ILS approach. Another UK difference?
BTW, this is not intended in any way to give a bad impression of the UK or London ATC. I think they are doing a great job in a busy enviroment. Just a question.

Shore Guy

28th Jun 2005, 18:58

Sigh………..much more heat than light being generated here on a very serious topic. Looks like this was very close to being Tenerife II.

A possible (cockpit based) solution to prevent such mishaps in the future? Surface map and ADS-B. Technology is already there. But, unfortunately, in today’s airline economic climate, few safety devices will be added to aircraft without mandates (or lots of bodies - or both).

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

28th Jun 2005, 19:08

JW411. Sorry - your profile suggests you are in the UK.

The word "behind" was changed to "after" in the UK many years ago following a very serious incident. A small a/c was told "Behind the departing line up". The pilot promptly taxied straight on to the runway and nearly ended up dead as the preceding jet opened up the taps. The phrase was changed in the hope that "After" suggested "after that aircraft has gone".

H.Finn. "Cleared for the ILS" has been done to death on here a million times. It's not used in the UK because pilots were descending to minimum height miles from touchdown - like the guy heading f0or Heathrow who went down to 1200 ft over Central London. At many UK airports (probably including Luton) there is a lot going on under the ILS and if pilots are going to shove straight down to 1200 ft at 12 miles out there will be a bang.

All of this is to do with SAFETY, which is all to do with trying to avoid the sort of situation which started this thread. I worked with these "UK eccentricities" for 90% of my working life and had no problems..

H.Finn

28th Jun 2005, 19:20

Thank you Heathrow Director. Makes sense. But in this part of the world, Northern Europe, when cleared for ILS approach we don't descend to anything but initial approach altitude, while in USA when cleared for the ILS approach you are supposed to maintain the last cleared altitude until GS intercept. Used to cause problems for U.S. carriers in Helsinki, when cleared for ILS approach on a 30 degree intercept heading at 4000 ft, while the initial approach altitude is 2000 ft. Ended up on the localizer way above the GS. I guess we alll agree that there is generally room for global standardisation.
With the little experience I have from 30-odd years of flying, the problem areas of ATC lie not in the UK or USA, some other countries in the old continent as well as the new come to mind first. Unfortunately, some of them in Europe, partly due to language problems, but that is another topic.

Stu Bigzorst

28th Jun 2005, 19:30

TO ALL AMERICANS HERE:

I amazed that noone has bothered to explain to you why the Europeans are having a go at your ATC. Please let me try.

Over here, we fly across many countries in a single sector, all of whom speak different languages. So, in order to be safe, it is DRILLED into us that standardised RT is mandatory. Anyone who deviates is considered UNSAFE.

For many of us, the only connection with our US counterparts is listening to them on the RT. And in one transmission, we can often hear enough errors to fail an entire sim ride.

"London, this is XXX123 passing flight level four fife climbing flight level niner zero radar heading zero niner zero degrees" becomes " 'merican twenny three forty five four nine oh goin' east" and we all just cringe.

So, on this basis alone, many assume "all US RT is dangerous".

Of course I'm not suggesting this, and I'm going to guess that other factors were in play in this incident, but this I think is the reason for the animosity.

Just so you know.

Stu

JW411

28th Jun 2005, 19:34

HD:

So you are telling me that just because some idiot in a PA28 took the runway immediately behind a 747 20 years ago and then got blown over the entire UK ATC system will continue to ban the use of the word "behind" despite what the rest of the world is doing?

I find that rather sad I'm afraid.

As to the ILS bit: when I am cleared for the ILS (for example in Gothenburg) that means that I am cleared to leave my assigned level and descend to the platform height (in this case 3000 ft) then intercept and capture the localiser and, when I have done that, follow the glide.

Who in their right mind would immediately descend to 200 feet apart from Ariana at Gatwick donkey's years ago before the days of approach bans?

If it is not too an impertinent question, when exactly did you retire for you seem to be a bit unwordly or out of touch?

A310driver

28th Jun 2005, 21:03

H FINN

You are wrong about altitudes to be maintained in the USA relative to an ILS approach or any other published approach procedure.

Once cleared for an approach the last assigned altitude is maintained until established on a segment of the published approach at which time a descent is (can be) made to the charted altitude for that segment. GSIA occurs on the final segment and defines the FAF (usually but not always at or near the OM)

ChewyTheWookie

28th Jun 2005, 21:24

"So you are telling me that just because some idiot in a PA28 took the runway immediately behind a 747 20 years ago and then got blown over the entire UK ATC system will continue to ban the use of the word "behind" despite what the rest of the world is doing?"

That is like saying that the only reason there is a cover over the evac alarm switch is that some "idiot" pressed it once when they shouldn't have. No, it's there so it can't be pressed accidentally in a momentary lapse of concentration. As has already been said, the phraseology is written to be "fail-safe". It just happens that the UK adapted to a flaw in the system and no-one else did. Changing the word "behind" to the word "after" is not a big deal, costs nothing and could save lives.

barlozza

28th Jun 2005, 21:35

hey guys...you mentioned italian airports..well flying into MXP is no any different then CDG..if any the italian ATC will be polite and english speaking.

beside the respect that all those scared pax and crew deserve I just want to point out that regardless what you fly,I will never accept to fly an approach the way the ATC wants it if I feel unconfortable with it.
I fly the plane you fly the radar...
I slow down and I inform you,I take heading and I inform you...trying when I can do please them but my ars is on the deck while theirs is on the screen.

to bad that still too many of us keep thinking about manhood when is time to G/A or too slow down.

Chris Higgins

28th Jun 2005, 21:41

I've been flying in the USA for the last fifteen years in singles, twins, turbo props and now jets. I was based in JFK for three and a half years.

I've never had any of these problems, and I was born and raised and trained to fly in Australia.

I really don't see what the fuss is all about. The Logan controllers admitted an error, I'm sure the situation has been remedied.

maxalt

28th Jun 2005, 23:11

Given the responses here, I'm curious what makes you sure?
Feel free to go ahead and tell us.

West Coast

28th Jun 2005, 23:22

"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.

Faire d'income

29th Jun 2005, 01:00

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?

Squawk7777

29th Jun 2005, 01:11

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 :rolleyes: (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

Faire d'income

29th Jun 2005, 01:21

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.

Squawk7777

29th Jun 2005, 03:09

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

Ignition Override

29th Jun 2005, 03:28

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.

M609

29th Jun 2005, 03:29

Additionally, one gets his route clearance after the t/o clearance (not sure, if this is still the case) which I found very distracting.

Never heard of this........ :confused:

West Coast

29th Jun 2005, 04:58

"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.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

29th Jun 2005, 07:08

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.

bermondseya

29th Jun 2005, 08:03

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??

spekesoftly

29th Jun 2005, 10:39

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.

Flyrr100

29th Jun 2005, 12:07

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.

visibility3miles

29th Jun 2005, 18:11

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

[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.

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.

Check 6

29th Jun 2005, 18:34

Satellite photo link (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.233208,-77.231140&spn=0.158615,0.226936&z=5&t=k&hl=en)

insert: boston logan

Click on search

Zoom in

Check 6

;)

Rananim

29th Jun 2005, 21:29

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...

Ignition Override

30th Jun 2005, 04:39

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.

411A

30th Jun 2005, 09:38

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...:}

ASRAAM

30th Jun 2005, 11:33

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?

pilotbear

30th Jun 2005, 15:05

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.:cool:
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.):rolleyes:

West Coast

30th Jun 2005, 15:07

ASRAAM

In one breath you condemn conditional clerances and in another you seem to promote it. Just an observation.

Idunno

30th Jun 2005, 18:13

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. What a load of patronising bull.

Ralph Cramden

30th Jun 2005, 18:25

Almost everything that needs to be said has been said on this thread. The bottom line is that those who feel uncomfortable flying into US airports should NOT bid them.

Danny...you're the moderator and can edit what you wish, however I feel you pulled the pin a little early on some of the posts, in particular one by AMF. Describing some of us as "spotter experts for Dummies" seems a bit harsh. In my case I have spent over 35 years pushing airplanes across 5 continents. I may be a dummy but I ain't no spotter expert. I admit that Idunno was getting under my skin. He seems to have a talent for it. I would suggest it works against him with ATC over here. His first two posts on this thread are so outragous and downright abusive it's no wonder he attracted a few Sidewinders.

Idunno...take a Valium and stick to flying in a less demanding environment.

Flame

30th Jun 2005, 18:48

"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"

They know what they're doing and they expect the same from you ...I am sure the crews of both aircraft involved in this incident would agree with you totally..!!!!!!!!!

Idunno

30th Jun 2005, 19:19

Idunno...take a Valium and stick to flying in a less demanding environment. Why don't you take the valium? Seems you're already snoozing - like most of your countrymen.

'Bidding off' US trips is not an option, its my job. Any other bright ideas? Retire maybe? Gimme a break.

I've flown all over the world and can adjust well enough to US 3rd world attitudes too - like I said at the beginning - I just remember each time I fly there they are basically out to kill me. That works for me - it engenders a valuable sense of self preservation.

ChewyTheWookie

30th Jun 2005, 19:54

You american lot obviously haven't really got a clue about good aviation practices, I am glad I only operate in Europe.

Flying an aeroplane to it's limits is not flying it well. The limits are there so they can be used in an emergency, not all the time. A good pilot does not just get the aeroplane from A to B, he/she respects it's performance and capabilities and flies accordingly.

It seems from this thread that European ATC allows the aeroplane to be flown without pushing it too hard unnecessarily, and US ATC just wants to get it on the ground regardless of the method. I only fly light aircraft, but I know enough to realise that technique is important, not just doing something because it can and I can. It would appear that US ATC brings about a lot more stress in an already stressful situation...

"Idunno...take a Valium and stick to flying in a less demanding environment."

Well, flying into LHR is hardly undemanding, yet demands on the pilots are minimised by good air traffic control from all 5 major London airports.

Basurablanca

30th Jun 2005, 20:08

You american lot obviously haven't really got a clue about good aviation practices

All people who make sweeping generalizations are idiots.

Oh. Well.

Jerricho

30th Jun 2005, 20:20

As it seems this "discussion" is again leaning towards what it was earlier :rolleyes:, I think I'll post the same question here as is in the "scratch and bite" thread in ATC issues:

I will ask drivers a simple question. At the end of a long flight, do you want an approach that doesn't spring any surprises on you, that is going to give you an intercept to final approach that isn't going to leave you high or fast with a TCAS bluttering at you about vertical speed and low level VFR traffic in you vicinity, with a runway change sprung on you at the last minute, all the while with the guy on the other end of the r/t trying his best to break the "words per minute" record?

OFBSLF

30th Jun 2005, 20:22

You american lot obviously haven't really got a clue about good aviation practices, I am glad I only operate in EuropeSo you have no first hand experience, but you still know enough to slag off all US pilots and ATC?

Typical PPrune yank-bashing.

RRAAMJET

30th Jun 2005, 20:45

It seems to me, Danny, that every thread involving the key letters "U.S." becomes a disaster area for wind-up merchants and those who have a niggling political itch that won't go away, using aviation as a metaphor for annoyance at everything American in general. I see the same in the UK automobile magazines, where quite unrelated jibes at the US totally off-topic from cars plaster every editorial (eg: Apr 2005 'C@R' - 28 needless prods throughout spoiling an otherwise good read).

I know this pleases the masses, but it's embarrasingly childish for us Brits living overseas. Many Americans are not as ignorant as some of you think, political speeches notwithstanding, and the quiet masses politely smile and say nothing at Euro-rants. Just like British soccer hooliganism, it's the loud ones that sear an image into the memory. PPRUNE has become a relief-zone for suppressed xenophia, on both sides of the Atlantic. Some of the postings have descended into little more than lager-lout keyboard pushing.

I would remind viewers: the last major fatal ground collision occurred IN EUROPE. The last major fatal mid-air collision occurred IN EUROPE. It is therefore with astonishment I read some of the more "people in glass houses" postings from some of my fellow Europeans, land of the apparently perfect RT and procedures....hmmm.

Having flown in 127 countries, there's little wrong with the US or European systems. Flexibility - the key to air power....

:rolleyes:

Idunno

30th Jun 2005, 21:15

And another thing....

Those of you who suggest its 'great fun' to push your aircraft to its limits to please ATC, and for your own amusement - you really need to consider a career change. You are obviously frustrated flying commercial transports.

I would suggest you might consider crop dusting.
Or maybe aerobatic display flying.
Or join the airforce.

Passenger transports are not designed for your entertainment. Passengers do not pay you to have a jolly at their expense, while they suffer through another of your max rate/max drag/ glide approaches.

Try to remember that this business is about SAFETY - not your FUN.
Whether you're a Yank or a Brit, there's no room for boy-racers in commercial aviation.

answer=42

30th Jun 2005, 21:34

Good evening, this is your SLF speaking. May I ask a question?

Intersecting runways are, evidently a fact of life. The consensus (!) view on this thread is that the two BOS controllers were in error.

However, is there a general theory/approach to ensuring that BOS-type events cannot happen? If so, do operating procedures in practice conform with this general approach? Putting the question the other way round, is control of intersecting runways failsafe?

Hope this makes sense. And no, I'm not a journo, though they will be reading this thread.

chiglet

30th Jun 2005, 21:36

An "observation"As a " mere" ATSA, t'other day we had a "breakthrough" on RT,[EGCC Twr] An American a/c, who was "Shooting for the Boundary"
:ok:
watp,iktch

West Coast

30th Jun 2005, 22:34

Quotes from ChewyTheWookie

"I flew in there tonight (no, I am not a pilot by the way)"

"As crew for a large British airline"

Are you a flight attendent?

A few days later wookie posted the quote below. Did you manage to get a pilots license in the 10 or so pages of the thread? I ask since you made the point of telling us your not a pilot. If this thread has a few more days left on it, I'd be curious to find out if you end up with an ATPL

"I only fly light aircraft"

There is an entry price to this technically orientated slagging. Its called being an airline pilot or an Air traffic controller. Neither of which you are. Really, are you a flight attendent?

Carnage Matey!

30th Jun 2005, 23:16

Yes he is. A rather opinionated one too!

West Coast

30th Jun 2005, 23:47

As I suspected. May be hell on wheels on evacuating an aircraft but his opinions carry no weight here. He is simply repeating what others tell him. He shouldn't have strong opinions about things he doesn't understand. There's a slide deployment thread around, I hope he spends some time there learning about what he should know about instead of here spouting off about things heard secondhand.

Carnage Matey!

30th Jun 2005, 23:56

Funny you should mention that because in another place his alter ego has been banging on about how he'd blow a slide and initiate an evacuation regardless of the instructions of the flight crew otherwise. Seems to be developing the BA cabin crew idea that we're all equally trained and skilled on board the aircraft and their assessment counts as much as ours.

AMF

1st Jul 2005, 09:08

Well, now that we have pax and F/As chiming-in with "expert" opinions (in other words, slagging-off) on U.S. ATC, I'd like to hear from someone who's opinion has been formed by actual facts and experience.

I don't consider landing at a U.S. airport twice a month "very experienced" when it comes to judging an ATC system, especially if you can't reason your way into seeing why even basic arrival procedures are designed the way they are, or have trouble flying your airplane in compliance to instructions when 100 heavies just ahead of you that day didn't.

I'd like to read the opinion from someone schooled and experienced in the UK/Euro system, but who has also been based and operated extensively in the U.S. In other words; low-time, airline cadet, ab initio-ed gear pullers (even if you're pulling gear on a Speedbird heavy and have impeccable R/T) need not respond. Your opinion is worth barely more than the Euro PPL/FA or pax when it comes to making sweeping generalizations about the safety of a foreign ATC system....Your experience is so limited it carries almost no weight.

Someone with extensive, dual-based experience I'll listen to, and take into full consideration what they have to say if the subject is entire ATC systems whether they agree with me or not. My opinions on the matter have been formed over almost 25 years...15 based in the U.S. mostly in the Northeast corridor and O'hare, and almost 10 based in Europe/UK/Middle East/Africa, and operating worldwide from both.

Also, I've never had a violation, accident, incident, or even been scolded about improper R/T procedures despite being "merican (sorry guys, I won't generate "Stupid-Yank" fodder for you on the airwaves..you'll just have to peruse your Guardian and find something else). That's my record functioning in the various systems and into I-don't-know-how-many countries.

Anyone making the generalization that the U.S. ATC system is "trying to kill me" despite it's record pins himself as a member of the highly-INexperienced category, unable to adapt to minor changes in structure and procedures let alone anticipate them, and highly emotional. This implies a rote-memory level of proficiency in that person, and to cover it up they resort to scare-mongering to whoever will listen. Most "armchair experts" latch and cling-onto these rants, in order to be noticed themselves.

So please, can we hear from anyone who actually knows...through depth of experience... what they're talking about when comparing the two?

M.85

1st Jul 2005, 10:29

Well,I worked in the USA for about 3 years flying freight.
I must say the ATC was more than helpful especially being based in the midwest..
The american system is simple and effective from flight licensing to commercial operations..
In Europe,if it means Northern Europe,that is North of South of France..I have never had any concerns..only problem would be to become complecent due to the high level of ATC .
However in other states such as Italy,Spain,Greece,Turquey,lets not talk about North Africa...it becomes a daily #watch out# and listen out to their potential mistake..
Not 2 days ago flying to greece..on the published arrival,my flight was cleared to 5000 feet,problem being the minimum altitude for the approaching segment we were about to enter in a few minutes was 7000ft or Above .The EGPWS was showing a nice 5.7ft.
ATC gave us a last minute left turn as vectors forthe approach.Lets say they had forgoten about us..lots of blabla over there,we would have to level off before reaching the segment hence not satisfying their demand and may have had a traffic advisory..

Just an example but it goes on and on..ATC on the groung is far from a joyride either..

Stay safe and ATC is a guidance not an order.If not happy advise them before **** hits the fan;-)

If your coffee turned out cold..means you probably worked more than you should have.

M.85

Spitoon

1st Jul 2005, 10:30

I would remind viewers: the last major fatal ground collision occurred IN EUROPE. The last major fatal mid-air collision occurred IN EUROPE.This may well be the case but I don't think anyone could claim that if US procedures had been in use the accidents would not have happened.

I do, however, have confidence that after these sad events occurred there was a complete and independent investigation and the faults and failings that led to them were identified. Procedures were changed - and not just at the locations were the accidents occurred - and training changed to try and prevent the same thing hppening again. I can really only speak for the UK but the same thing happens here for incidents - and similar systems are being introduced across Europe at present.

I'm not trying join the UK vs US debate which is, frankly, an embrassment. But can we have the same confidence that the incident at BOS that started this thread will be similarly investigated and lessons learned? Unless the answer is an unequivocal yes then we are not everything we can or should be to make aviation as safe as it can be - wherever we are in the world.

jumbowanabee

1st Jul 2005, 10:57

AMF I must agree with your analysis that there are many who are unqualified to pass comment on US ATC procedures, I am not going to rant about my own experience except to say in the main I find the US ATC to a very high standard. However there are times when the sheer volume of traffic necessitates a compromise in this standard. For example the read back of ATC instructions when airborne. I understand that the airtime is busy and it is physically impossible to get in a reply, however this does not make it acceptable. Recently arrived in JFK after 13 hour flight, almost dark, visibility not much better then 4sm. We were given a CRI onto 13L. There are presently no approach lights, centre lights and no edge lights. The F/O was less then 1000 hours and less then 300 on type, English level 3 at the most. Given speed control to CRI of min approach speed then after passing CRI handed over to tower and told to maintain 170kts. The reply was not ‘Roger’ or ‘Wilco’ but simply ‘unable’. The wind at the time was 190/15. Vectors to an ILS 22L would have been my preference, I was working pretty much on my own and had been on duty for almost 15 hours. Once again the situation was not unsafe but was less safe then it could have been. Remember not all crews that fly into the US have the luxury of English as their 1st language, not all crews have the experience level you obviously enjoy, (I get max 2 landings per month) and no we don’t fly there every day, in fact the last time I was in NY was over 6 months ago. Many airlines do not operate bid systems and so the option of not going to the US is a non starter. As the old saying goes ‘why make life difficult when with a little more effort you can make it bloody impossible’

Austrian Simon

1st Jul 2005, 11:13

I have often been sitting at US airports watching the traffic and listening to ATC at the same time. One of my favourites in that regard has always been Grand Canyon Airport, which amazed me to no end in how efficiently they operated a solely procedural separation, and got to grips with about 6000 movements a day within about 12 hours a day on a single runway.

Within all my amazement and admiration of those controllers I do remember one particular scene, that I would hope never repeated but I am sure is being repeated on almost a daily basis ...

Three (piston) commercial aircraft were waiting for departure, having run through all run up and having announced to be ready for departure already. At the same time 3 aircraft were on downwind, the first of them very close to turning base.

I could hear the controller taking a deep breath and then issuing following clearances without ever taking a breath in between (I omit the call signs, just number the aircraft according to their landing and departing sequence) and omit several details (the controller did use all the required phrases however and provided all necessary details in each of the clearances) ...

Number 1, cleared for takeoff
Number 2, position on runway and hold
Number 3, position on runway and hold
Number 1, cleared to land, winds ..., QNH
Number 2, cleared to land
Number 3, cleared to land
Number 2, cleared for takeoff runway 03
Number 1, continue approach (the airplane seemed to level off and obviously preparing a go-around)
Number 3, cleared for takeoff runway 03 (at this point, the first landing aircraft had already reached the lights, and it was very obvious the pilot wasn't sure what to do - he deliberately held the airplane high and did not descend anymore, but did not yet climb out)
Controller now yelling (still hadn't caught any breath in between!): NUMBER 1, CONTINUE APPROACH

Now the first landing aircraft started to descend again (already quite a bit over the lights), while the last departing plane started rolling. When the landing aircraft touched down, the departing aircraft was about 300 meters down the runway and still well on the ground. When it finally rotated and got airborne, the minimum distance between the two planes had well been below 200 meters.

It also needs to be said, that had the first landing aircraft really executed a go-around, they would most certainly have created a conflict with the departing aircraft as soon as those got airborne. The usual practise of just "shifting" to the right, or even to the left, during go-around was made impossible by the fact, that aircraft were on down wind on both (left- and right hand) patterns.

I leave it to every reader to draw conclusions from this scene, whether that operation was still safe or whether this extremely stretched or went beyond the limits.

Certainly there are very decisive differences to the way how ATC operates in the US and in Europe (just the fact, that multiple takeoff and landing clearances can be issued in the US underlines that fact, as in Europe the aircraft being cleared for takeoff or landing uniquely "owns" the runway until the runway has been vacated).

Another scene comes to mind, I encountered, this time in Las Vegas while departing to Grand Canyon on one of the commercial "sightseeing" flights as a passenger (without a possibility to listen to ATC) ... We had taxied into position already and were holding for a while, when our pilot pushed the throttles forward and released the brakes. The copilot however immediately slammed the throttles back to idle and stumped onto the brakes very hard, so that we probably didn't move more than perhaps 10 meters. Shortly thereafter we could see a B737 lift off on the crossing runway, just starting to rotate as it went across our runway. The copilot then turned to us and explained, that ATC had issued simultaneous takeoff clearances, a fact which he had picked up, and he therefore had rejected our takeoff.

I didn't believe that explanation at the time, but rather thought our pilot might have mistaken the takeoff clearance for that B737 as his takeoff clearance (which shows my believe in the skill and performance of US ATCs) - today however I am not so sure anymore, whether my assessment at the time was correct or not.

Just two examples that highlight some issues, that may or may not need more careful review.

Simon

Bealzebub

1st Jul 2005, 11:54

Sorry Simon, but as with many "enthusiasts" you talk a lot of "twaddle".

Grand canyon (south rim) airport as I recall from my last visit was something of a quiet backwater. It must have changed if it handles 6000 movements in 12 hours. That would be one movement every 7 seconds !! A truly amazing feat.

"I could hear the controller taking a deep breath". You could ?
"very obvious the pilot wasn't sure what to do". Was it ?
"Controller now yelling (still hadn't caught any breath in between!). Hadn't he and wouldn't his "yelling" have distorted the transmission ?
"The usual practise of just "shifting" to the right, or even to the left, during go-around was made impossible by the fact, that aircraft were on down wind on both (left- and right hand) patterns." Is that the usual practice ?

"QNH" in the US ?

"Just two examples that highlight some issues, that may or may not need more careful review." Right !!

:rolleyes:

Cytherea

1st Jul 2005, 12:08

Surely all that anyone wants is to operate in a SAFE environment. By "anyone" I mean Pilots, ATCOs Cabin Crew, SLF and those unfortunate enough to live around an airport - all of whom will have an opinion based on their own observations, requirements and experience...each valid as long as it's accurate. I make no observations on any particular country or region merely from the view point of safety. AMF et al believe the best way to avoid conflict in US airspace is to stay out of it if you can't hack it, unfortunately that option is not open to a large number of crews from other countries and other cultures ref Jumbowannabe's post. Likewise experience will vary - how else will anyone become "very" experienced? - the fact of the matter is that if you have foreign aircraft in your airspace they will not be as experienced as the flyers of the homeland imagine if you will a US pilot operating his first international flight to an African nation after having 15 years domestic flying I am sure that he would find things very different and even confusing whilst being an extremely accomplished and experienced aviator. Providing the ATCO is licensed and the pilots operating the flights are licensed and the respective countries Aviation Authorities are happy to be operating in that airspace one must administrate,regulate and control with regard to flight safety to the lowest common denominator in terms of experience, language and human factors. The truth is that commercial pressures, political niceties, and national pride often impinge on this theory and inadequate compromises arise worldwide.
With regard to pushing the aircraft's flight envelope - there is a tragic thread on Rumours and News about a relatively inexperienced Pinnacle crew who tried just that.
It is not my intention to offend or point fingers - I'd welcome comment form anyone.

Austrian Simon

1st Jul 2005, 12:22

Hello, Bealzebub,

>>"I could hear the controller taking a deep breath". You could ?

At that point, just before he started to issue the commands, I could hear him taking a deep breath (while still taking the breath and preparing the commands he already had pushed the talk button), later on - between the commands - I couldn't hear any more breath, as he issued the commands in just one stream of words without taking a breath in between.

>>"The usual practise of just "shifting" to the right ... " Is that the usual practice ?

As far as I am aware of, yes, to give room to the departing aircraft. It's certainly not a good idea to stay right atop of the departing airplane (and thus, besides producing a possible conflict, loose it out of sight, too, under visual flight rules).

>>"QNH" in the US ?

Sorry, habit (using European phraseology) - and one should never type in a hurry ;-)

There are two more errors in my previous post ... A 0 too many (600, not 6000 movements/day in average - otherwise they would shift nearly as much traffic as KDFW), and it was runway 21, not 03.

Nonetheless, those (misreported) details don't invalidate the encounters, which do raise some questions as far as I am concerned.

Simon

Danny

1st Jul 2005, 13:32

OK, now that we've had a chance to make our points, I'd like to ask Idunno, AMF, West Coast and a few of the others that are painting each others ATC system with such broad strokes to try and get back to somewhat more serious debate, without all the childish, nationalistic prods. It's bad enough trying to keep this debate to the issues and by those actually involved in BOTH systems in their daily lives.

I feel that I'm qualified to take part as I have experience of both systems, as well as others all over the world. I have an FAA CPL, obtained after training there in the early 90's at Meacham Field, FT. Worth, Texas. At that time it was one of the busiest controlled fields with around 1,200 movements a day on multiple runways whilst sharing it's airspace with the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex. Also, I have operate B757's out of MIA. I was based there for 6 weeks operating to South America. I also operated B767's in and out of Orlando Sanford and now operate B744's to MIA, MCO, JFK, EWR, BOS, LAS, LAX and SFO amongst other airports worldwide.

Suffice it to say that I find the standard of controlling in the US as professional and slick as I do here in the UK. There are a few differences but I wouldn't like to see either transposed on the other. Each works for the environment that it is in. Yes, to us Brits trained and brought up over here it can seem a bit overwhelming, at first, when operating into a busy US airport. Some of the controllers do need to remember that they may be dealing with someone whose first language may not be english or may be new to US ops. There are some US accents that are difficult to understand as there are some British ones. Occasionally everything feels a bit rushed when dealing with a very busy controller who is firing off instructions without a break. That I would put down to poor management by allowing the system to so overload one individual.

There are some things that I do like about operating into busy US airports and that is the way they allow their radar controllers to give advice on the location of weather in their area that they are vectoring people around. Also, I have nothing against the "cleared to land" instruction as I am fully aware that I am still responsible for accepting it provided I am happy that I will be responsible for going around if I'm not.

I certainly don't like the 'nanny state' attitude we sometimes get over here in the UK with regards to ILS approaches. Whilst I understand the requirements about not descending below initial approach height and below the glide path when at the final approach fix, I find it frustrating when cleared for the LOC, establishing whilst in a CDA and then being unable to get a word in for long enough to put me above the glideslope because I'm not allowed to be 'cleared for the ILS' in one single instruction.

There is a certain comfort in the standardisation of UK ATC RT. However, when in the US, I find that I am able to adapt to their methods. I know that they understand more non-standard RT but I certainly wouldn't say that they are safer for it. Far too many times I have heard controllers have to repeat themselves over in the US than over here. It may be slick but if it has to be repeated al the time then it defeats the purpose. One thing is for sure though, if I don't fully understand the controller I ask him or her to repeat it until I do. No big deal.

We are not allowed to do LAHSO approaches and so far I've never been offered one. If I was I'd just refuse it. Also, if I felt I was being vectored too tight I'd just ask for a few extra miles. The US controllers might give a sigh or whatever but we're the ones that have the last word. Better still, if you're arriving at a busy airport where you know you get vectors that are a bit tight, tell them early on what your intentions are and they will be most accommodating.

So what if some American pilots use non-standard RT over here. I have yet to have a problem understanding them even if some of the colloquialisms make you cringe. Have you heard some of the tug drivers trying to get across the active runway at LHR? Also, the differences in conditional clearances between the two systems are not that difficult to get your head around.

The angry responses by the few antagonists on here which condemn either system with such broad brushstrokes are silly and those who respond to them are just as bad for acknowledging them in the first place. I thoroughly enjoy the busy bits at either end of a long or short flight. Aware of the differences in both systems, I adapt as necessary. Far more worthy of blood pressure raising is the farce that we have to go through once on the ground in US when entering or departing as crew and dealing with INS and TSA

I'd like once again to ask that unless you have a question about these kind of operations we don't get those not familiar with jet ops into major, busy airports. Grand Canyon is indeed a sleepy backwater, at least when I last flew into there. Also, prop a/c handle very differently than swept wing jets when on approach. So, can we leave the hate filled rabid swats at each system in general and concentrate on the way we deal with what we're lumbered with.

Ralph Cramden

1st Jul 2005, 15:14

Absolutly bang on Danny. Your post should close out this thread. I'm going sailing.

GearDown&Locked

1st Jul 2005, 18:58

If you gentleman permit me to get back to the initial question raised by the originating post of this thread, I would like to ask a quick question about it, if I may.

So I'm sitting on a rwy (no matter where!!!!!, US/UK/South Pole/Tibette) that I know, provided by my most recent airport diagram/chart, is crossed by another rwy, I'm lined up, ready and waiting for my T/O clearance, and I also know, either by R/T or simple observation, that the other rwy is or could be in use, and I don't feel comfortable with that situation... what should I do after been given the clearance (and before "pushing thrust levers into EICAS") ?

Should I trust ATC blindly and go for it?

Should I wait for a second or two in order to give some time for a possible correction to be made by ATC?

Should I ask the controller to repeat the last transmission?

GD&L

eastern wiseguy

1st Jul 2005, 19:05

That night, one controller was in charge of the Aer Lingus jet and another was monitoring the US Airways plane.

As I said right at the start of this ...the system seems to have failed DANGEROUSLY...never mind bringing your A game or in europe we blah blah blah ,the SYSTEM failed. It would appear luck rather than judgement leaves us talking about an airprox rather than a disaster.

West Coast

1st Jul 2005, 20:22

Generally speaking, the system didn't fail. Individuals failed. There are no absolute guarantees. No system is foolproof. You can implement what you believe to be the best available procedures and if a human fails, the system fails.

Hotel Mode

1st Jul 2005, 21:02

Unless the 2 controllers were neglecting their duty, then the System most definately failed, be that training or procedural. The Controllers were the last line of defence against a system that had holes in it, and perhaps it shows how good BOS controllers are that its not happened before.
Operating 2 different freqs for intersecting runways is not a good idea. The system created the circumstances for 2 people to make a near fatal mistake.
I havent been to KBOS for a few months so i cant remember if the 2 thresholds can be seen from each other. KORD always seem to clear you to take off beofre aircraft have passed the intersection, you'd only have to get distracted and say it too early. Some sort of runway incursion system as at LHR may be a plan for these crossings. Theres quite a few stories of low/med speed aborts due intersecting traffic in my company at several locations.

egbt

1st Jul 2005, 21:22

Wise man said that "a fail safe system fails when it fails to fail safe" so ultimately its "the systems fault" unless, possibly, Murphy has intruded to cause multiple discrete failures leading to the ultimate system failure.

Thankfully the FO took the correct action and all was well, he appears to be the hero in all this.

That does not read well but its late after a difficult day!

AMF

1st Jul 2005, 21:31

"Thanks" those with experience who have responded.

M.85....

I agree with everything in your post regarding the quality of ATC as I've experienced it in those regions you mentioned.

Jumbo....

Well written post and I agree that ATC shouldn't assume levels of experience or language understanding, and factor in possible fatigue or experience levels of the crew. You of course did the right thing when telling Tower "unable" in your situation. I hope nobody here thinks they can't.

Readbacks do become a luxury sometimes due to traffic saturation, but keep in mind that reading back assignments in those high-density situations don't necessarily ensure or enhance safety. There have been "hearback" incidents where a pilot has misunderstood instructions, read-back the misinterpretation, and missed by the controller (Btw, the onus is still on the pilot if they read back incorrectly and it's not caught by the controller). During high-saturation, it's easier for the controller to see your compliance on radar (he's definitely focused) while stacking or turning other aircraft so his/her picture comes together. When a controller begins to "break...issue..."break"..issue", that's a sign that he's seeing more than what he's hearing, and readbacks are only enhance safety if they have the time to actually listen to them and catch a mistake.

This rapid-fire situation is only acceptable (but works) if both pilots in the cockpit are maintaining a focused listening watch for their callsign, and use cockpit prodedures that confirm between the two pilots they've heard the same thing while attending to their other dutes. The high-level of safety is maintained more in this way...crew coordination and internal confirmation.. than by a readback where unless we specifically request it, subsequent silence from a controller is understood to be confirmation. While he expects to see you complying on his radar, he also expects a query if a crew is unsure of the instructions.

Admittedly, you're in a less-than-favorable situation if your F/O isn't up to speed or has trouble with the language. I can remember early in my career flying Barons and King Airs single-pilot in that bad-weather Notheast environment, and I've never experienced higher workload levels since, anywhere...and that's understanding the language. At your stage, you shouldn't be having to fly "virtual" single-pilot now in that high-saturation environment and babysit.

Happily, we have TCAS nowadays, where what they do is backed up by an electronic source of our own to see. I certainly remember the days without, IMC, and the rapid-fire instructions were nonstop. That was literally "blind trust", but I don't remember them ever mating any two aircraft over a city. Also, you're old saying is one of the best around.

Cytherea.....

The only person I recommended to bid away from flying to the U.S. was IDunno, and that was not because of his inexperience, but rather his repeated, declarative, self-proclaimed opinion that his life was in danger every time he did, and that it was a "crazy" situation. He claimed ATC asked him to do impossible things with his aircraft....I seriously doubt that....ATC at the locations he flies into is well-versed in differing types of aircraft and their capablilties. I asked for facts and statistics to back up his statements...but he has never offered anything but emotional oubursts. For that reason, I recommended he just stay away, obviously being too-stressed, bordering on paranoia.

I agree, learning and adapting to work within a system only comes through actually doing it. Nobody is born with the inherent experience, and there is always first times for everyone whether they have 500 hours or 15,000. New is new, and even the most experienced have moments of confusion. Keep in mind that this happens to controllers as well. Like it or not, flights from the UK will be assumed to be piloted by highly-proffesional crews who don't get ruffled, speak the language, don't need a lot of coddling, and know the U.S. system fairly well.

The earlier referred-to NY ATC-Concorde exchange posted highlights this expectation, where the probable assumption of the controller was that the BA Concorde pilot knew he was getting a straight-in approach while others were flying the entire arrival. A favor, that worked well with the controllers need to avoid fuel-state situations, noise considerations, etc. The dressing-down he gave the pilot was basically sending him back to school because he realized that pilot made an assumption of his own..that the controller was stupid and acting arbitrarily. The controller didn't want to assume the lowest common denominator for the Concorde, but as it turns out, he had to in that case after it was on the ground. Having to treat everyone as the "lowest common denominator" is efficency-lost, so they don't.

That's a major difference in the two systems, and an outgrowth from the amount of traffic that's handled and environment.

Is that holding UK crews to a higher standard?.....well, yes, but that's no different from holding American crews to a higher standard of being able to speak English with no colliloquisms while operating overseas. The usual complaint is about "standared" R/T phraseology infractions....not actually mis-handling aircraft, violations, or missed assignments that create a danger. It sounds sloppy to the ear in the UK, and will simply confuse controllers into silence in other regions.

Danny.....

A great post and points well-taken. If mentioning certain things that seem unnecessary or achaic in others systems was taken as "Painting it with a broad-brushstroke", I apologize. That was not my intent, for I was doing so merely to highlight that small differences do NOT indict an entire system if it's working to a statistical, proveable, high-level of safety and efficency. The UK/Euro system is safe to a high-level, but has different ways of achieving it, and in my opinion this has evolved as a result of traffic volume and routine weather considerations.

I responded to the thread was because of blatant scaremongering by a member who extrapolated this BOS incident into an ad hoc attack while foisting himself off as an authority. In our profession, declarative statements such as his will be challenged when the issue is safety. If this forum were "hangar-talking" among peers, that would be ok. But it's a public forum for anyone to read, and so questioning his premise in public in order to highlight the lack of support for his "dangerous-trying to kill me" claim seemed reasonable. "Put up, or shut up", as the saying goes. If I had indeed responded to his attack in kind, I would "put up" the evidence making the same claim. There IS a difference between defending against an attack and making making one. The incidents I referred to happening to me under the UK/Euro system were not in the vein of attack.

They were cited to point out the obvious (and what I thought everybody understood); that any highly-complex system can never be designed to be "failsafe" in every circumstance. The inability to do so is in part what helps define something as a "highly complex system" in the first place. Any system is subject to human factors/errors. Lapses occur, but just as in operating national power supply-grid systems or running an aircraft carrier to it's full capability, the ATC system(s) are highly complex, but efficient to the point that the exceptions prove the rule. The BOS incident is one such example, and it's oxymoronic to use this exception as "evidence" that it's the norm. If it were, incidents like this wouldn't make the newpapers, and the internal and external investigative gears already set in motion seeking answers and resolutions wouldn't even exist.

That's all, I'm done with this thread as well.

Human Factor

1st Jul 2005, 22:54

Danny,

We are not allowed to do LAHSO approaches and so far I've never been offered one.

Keep in mind that it's illegal for us to do 'passive' LAHSO approaches as well. i.e. Someone holding short for us. It's not always easy to pick up on.

ChewyTheWookie

1st Jul 2005, 23:03

West Coast,

When I said I am not a pilot, that is correct, I am not fully qualified pilot, I am half way towards my PPL. There is no requirement to be a fully qualified commercial pilot to post here. (if there was, why would there be sections for cabin crew and private flyers?) I simply posted points based on my experience (no, it's not as much as yours clearly), the facts presented on this board and things learnt from my honours degree in engineering with aeronautics.

I find it amusing that you challenge my credibility simply because you cannot argue with the points I made. To argue that the aeroplane should be pushed to it's limits constantly would suggest that you are not the great pilot you suggest.

To those of you commenting on my posts on the evacuation thread:

The points I made were in regard to what I was trained to do by the SEP training department at the airline I work for. The whole thread had nothing to do with my attitude, only the way we are trained at this airline.

A330driver

1st Jul 2005, 23:40

AMF,

If I had a hot meal for the number of times that I've heard US pilots ask UK, or even any European ATC to phonetically spell out the name of a waypoint they've been cleared to, I wouldn't go hungry.

Moreover, the number of times I've heard US pilots refuse a direct clearance because a certain waypoint "isn't on our flight plan".....

A very basic assumption in aviation is that some sort of en-route chart is to hand in the cockpit as required by regulations. Could it be the case that certain operators / crews / individuals are in a mindset that unless a waypoint is actually on a CRT or LCD screen in front of them that it doesn't exist?

Not withstanding that Europe is a continent of over 20 states that have their own rules and regulations I have yet to hear such refusals from anyone else other than a US based crew. No doubt, having spent the night crossing the Atlantic before arriving in Europe, crew alertness levels are a factor.

Regarding "Readback is a luxury"...... I couldn't be so much more at odds with you.

It is a fundamental keystone that confirms what was said (transmitted) was actually (received) heard. Several noise factors are at work in ATC communications - the relatively poor quality of RT comms (As opposed to the full human aural range); background noise from the transmission side; background noise in the reception area; partial reception due to other traffic cutting in; expectations,.......... the list goes on. A clearance is not validated unless the originator has it accurately read back to him/her. Only then is there any level of confidence in the original message having been received as intended.

The massive increase in Air traffic over the last 25 years should not be under estimated. I've gone from a norm of perhaps being the only, or one of a few aircraft on a given frequency to a situation where it is often difficult to get a call in when needed. There has been no significant improvement in the way that we communicate with ATC. In fact the opposite has occured with increased RT traffic and frequency changes.

Rather than blame cultures or ethnics as being the source of the problem, the real issue has been the lack of investment and development by the relevent authorities. Consider the fact that the passengers have had access to crystal clear Satcom telephone calls midatlantic for the last ten years whilst the crew up front are still doing battle on shared HF frequencies (Short Wave Radio for the uninitiated) to get clearances and give position reports. This crazy situation exists only because there is money to be made from giving the phone to the passenger, but no financial gain if you give it to the pilots.

The enemy is not those that we meet or talk to day by day, but those above us that believe we don't deserve better than what we've got.

SaturnV

2nd Jul 2005, 00:37

Geardown, your alternatives 2 and 3 would seem to have produced no difference in what transpired. There is no indication from the press articles or the preliminary NTSB report that the control tower gave any warning to either plane beforehand.

From the initial Boston Globe story:

He [an unnamed controller] said that the crew in the tower was working two employees short and that air traffic controllers in charge of landings and takeoffs also had to guide and monitor aircraft delayed by bad weather, which were parked between active runways to free up gate space.

''Yes, there was an error," said the controller. ''But they were being asked to do things that maybe they shouldn't have been asked to do by shuffling aircraft between the runways."

Hotel Mode: Neither plane could see the other as it began its takeoff roll. Each flight crew's view of the other runway was initially blocked by terminals and, on this evening, by aircraft parked on taxiways.

For what its worth, the control tower at Boston won an FAA safety award in 2003 for having only three "incidents" on the airport's runways and taxiways during the year. No definition of what constitutes an "incident" given, but it apparently might include, for example, an accident between a ramp vehicle and an airplane.

West Coast

2nd Jul 2005, 00:39

ChewyTheWookie

"I am not fully qualified pilot"
As such not qualified to make obsevations on this thread.
Since the start of this thread you have varied from a non pilot to a student pilot to a pilot.

Don't buy it for a second.

mini

2nd Jul 2005, 01:27

This thread was opened on a serious issue, that is the original incident, it was drifted by the US/EU bashers with nothing constructive to say, I can see that it was just about impossible to moderate back to the original issue. I guess that we will have to wait for the official report to decide...

ChewyTheWookie

2nd Jul 2005, 01:34

West Coast,

This thread is not for flight crew only. PPRUNE is for anyone who takes and interest in flying.

You don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that I am not a pilot in the sense that you are (ie: I am not a commercial pilot), but I am a pilot in as much as I am taking lessons and have some knowledge of aviation. I have made it clear from my first post what I am and have not tried to claim anything else.

I don't care if you "buy" what I say for one second. Whether I am a 14 year old plane spotter or a training captain, I am entitled to post based on what I know. Again, you have not given an argument against what I actually posted, you have simply attacked me for not being a commercial pilot. Is this because what I said was true or do you simply not like communicating with people who have fewer hours than you? Maybe you should think back and remember that you were young once and were, like me, enthusiastic about aviation and working hard to learn to fly. Everyone has to start at the bottom.

Please can we now let this rubbish drop and get back to the original debate about safety.

Idunno

2nd Jul 2005, 13:28

Quite an epic post there AMF, but you still haven't explained why I should put up with 7,000' slam dunks in ORD when there's no traffic around. You're still stuck in the groove on 'A games' and needing a 'bit of a larf' at work.

The TFS crash that you refer to was almost duplicated in BOS a few weeks ago. TFS was caused by bad RT and the accident is used to train pilots in 'what not to do' in CRM classes all over europe (except maybe the Netherlands) - and the very lessons being hammered home there are ignored daily in the US, and you think its 'jest fine an dandy, thats jest how we do it'.

To be fair, en-route ATC in the US is generally good.
Its in terminal areas, and specifically on Approach, Tower and Ground frequencies in places like JFK that the plot falls apart.

I was recently lied to about vis by a controller in JFK who decided to switch me to an approach to an unlit CAT1 runway in what were in fact CAT3 conditions - because it suited his pattern.
Their mentality is crummy.

AMF

2nd Jul 2005, 13:51

A330Driver.....

Here's the alternative (and correct) answer to your presumtions that either 1) U.S. aircrews don't fly with charts, or 2) U.S. aircrews don't believe waypoints exist if they don't see them on their CRT/LCD screen. It's also why you'll hear U.S. crews refusing a clearance as you've described.....direct to a waypoint not found on their previous "as cleared" flight plan, and with nothing else forthcoming from ATC.

Their confusion with the waypoint lies in the fact thay they've not received airway routing beginning at the new waypoint, to either their destination or to re-join what they've been previously been cleared for. When hearing the single-waypoint clearance with no subsequent airway, the assumption on the U.S. crew's part is that the point is downroute somewhere in what's already been programmed.

This is because you'll never receive such a clearance in the U.S...an off-routing waypoint and nothing else. To accept it means that's your new clearance limit, and is not the same as receiving an off-route vector. This is also why you'll hear refusals for such a clearance found in UK/Euro. Personally, I don't refuse it, but I do request additional airway routing.

Now, I'm sure that if you receive a clearance to a new (or even downroute waypoint you're not familiar with) it's all crystal clear.....for example you hear; "A330Driver, cleared direct puppy". You of course automatically know it's spelled "PUPPI", as opposed to, say,.... PUPEE, PUPPE, PPUPY, PUPAY, PUUPI, or perhaps even PUPPY, but not everyone was blessed with your skill at instant interpretation and correction for regional accents and inflection, or knows every tidbit on the charts by heart.

Yes it's sad but true, given no other indicator such as a new airway, us Yanks sometimes have to ask for phonetic spelling in order to find out and confirm against our flight plan that the new assigned waypoint is nowhere on our cleared route, and then confirm spelling in order to begin looking for it somewhere on the charts (if we remembered to bring them) or program it into the FMS (so we really believe in it). You should market and sell the secret knowledge/skill you possess that bypasses this unique Yank-dysfunction. Then you could really cash in on American ineptitude, thus ensuring a lifetime of hot meals for you.

As someone so keen on R/T that you feel you could feed yourself pointing out the deficiencies in others, then I'm sure you can understand that real communication also means ATC telling the pilots what the plan is for them......just in case someone loses comm capability altogether. If it happens while you're on your route, you continue. If you've received an off-route vector, you return to your cleared route. But if you've recieved and accepted a clearance to a new waypoint only (which certainly sits on another airway, or perhaps an intersection) , what's the course of action for the remainder of the flight if you lose comm?

If I'm flying from LHR to HECA or OLBA and lose it over Paris approaching this new point-in-space with no real ROUTE clearance, who knows what I'll choose? Oh well, C'est la vie!

Once, just as an experiment when I was new to the aforementioned UK/Euro phenomena and in order to learn more, I flew the entire length of Italy from Switz to Greece receiving and accepting off-route, direct-to-waypoint clearances from them. No airway routing subsequent to each was ever offered, merely new "direct-to" assignments to waypoints not on our flightplan as we approached each one. Except for the FIRs, we were never on, or assigned, an airway or consecutive waypoints. It became a great game, trying to predict which way ATC was going to send us as we approached each limit and searching for the new place on the chart (we maybe even had to get spelling for some...I dont remember things like that). As a matter of fact, I think the F/O who was with me that day still owes me a few beers for being the better ATC mind-reader. Since we never knew what ATCs plan was for us (apparently being so Top Secret even we couldn't be told) I figured if we lost comms we'd just wander back somehow to our original routing, because at least then they'd know what we intended to do. We kind of got the feeling they didn't really care what we did, however.

You see in the U.S., direct-to-waypoint clearances aren't stand-alone points in the sky....they actually belong to something much larger having to do with how you'll get from Point A to Point B. They go something like this (and usually with a heads-up such as "new routing for you advise ready to copy"); "XXXFlight Xxx, cleared to destination present positon direct WANKR, J-191 TOSSR, blah blah blah PMPUS, as previously cleared".

You'll notice that the direct-to waypoint is merely the beginning of an actual route clearance that continues to Point B. The pilot actually knows what's expected of him after that point, and upon accepting it, it become his "Last Assigned Route". In other words, the crew knows what to fly if comms are lost. This is, indeed, unlike what you oftimes get in UK/Eurocontrol. I don't sweat it much...I just pull their teeth and get more info...but there's certainly nothing wrong with refusing a clearance to a point that goes nowhere.

The readback issue...

You don't have to agree with me..I'm just stating the ATC Saturation/Congestion Facts of Life for you. Readbacks are only helpful to the controller and therefore enhance safety up until they become a hinderance. At that point, because they eat up his time for issuing subsequent instructions and delaying what he wants to do with the BIg Picture, they become counterproductive to safety. The more aircraft, the more instructions, the less airwave time available, the more instructions, the more time readbacks for each one eat up, and so on....until him re-hearing what he just told you is getting in the way. He wouldnt be dropping the requirement if it weren't.

Non-radar, readbacks are indeed the best tool the controller has to predict that communication took place. I say "predict" because a readback is nothing more than theoretical, and doesn't guarantee to him that you've set your altitude, heading/speed bug, or FMS correctly. True communication takes place only if the real-world reaction aligns with what was said. Non-radar, the controller never really knows if what's happening out there is what has been communicated and agreed upon.

In a radar environment, even with a readback, the only true validation for the controller that communication took place between himself and the crew is always when he sees the airplane doing what he instructed. The real world reaction where midairs occur. A readback validates nothing in this reality...it's more like a promise to act using the language of re-communication. When saturated to the breaking point, he/she doesn't want or need your promise, they want and need your compliance. It's up to you and your other crew memeber to ensure reception, understanding, and comply without what is at that point merely a feel-good exercise for your benefit only, in that you think he's setting his priorities wrong. Let us know when you become a controller in the NYC Tracon and re-educate them on how and what communication procedures work best in an extremely dynamic, saturated airspace environment. I'm sure they could learn a thing or two about priorities....they have little experience with it.

Needless to say, unless he's using "break", readbacks are still expected, which is to say the vast majority of the time. But if time management demands that a controller make the decision to re-prioritize the readback tool to lesser importance while relying on his radar to compensate, it's done to achieve a higher level of safety than if they were required. If dropping them were detrimental to safety in those situations where time is of the utmost importance, then there would be aluminum chaff-cloud events appearing over Chicago, Atlanta, and the NYC area at least once a week.

Oops, and here I said I was through with this thread.

IDunno...

Sorry to break this to you old chap, but I never mentioned "bring your A Game" or "having a laugh" at work.

Funny, in the years I was based at ORD I never remember having "no traffic around". Kind of difficult for the busiest airport on the planet, don\'t you think? Especially when you consider that Midway (airline and corporate), and busy corporate/genav fields such as Palwakee, DuPage, Waukegan, etc, are all sitting nearby ORD and underneath Chicago Class B. They also utilize and are handled by Approach, and airspace is assigned for their arrivals and departures. In fact, if you added up the traffic movements for ORD and included all the airports in just the Chicagoland area underneath and near it\'s airspace, you might find it equals or exceeds on a daily basis the number of movements for the entire island of Great Britain.

Now, call me "crazy" too, but maybe they\'re keeping you above those other conflicts? You know, until you\'ve pointed it out, in the many hundreds of times I flew in and out of there I never realized they were keeping me high for no good reason. Just to screw with me and force me into my A Game.... Bastards!

I\'m sure you\'ve heard of nose abatement...gee I wonder if that may come into play.

Next time you go in there, when flying an arrival getting assigments you\'re unhappy or petulant about, just ask them why its the way it was. No doubt they\'ll be happy to answer all your questions. Please post their reasons here.

I\'m sorry if you think that U.S. ATC doesn\'t look at accidents everywhere and try to learn from them. I\'m sorry if you think they ignore it, or don\'t teach it. I\'m sorry you think we think "that\'s jest fine and dandy, that\'s jest how we do it". I\'m sorry you think we\'re "jest" a bunch of yokels. I\'m sorry you think you get lied to by what you think are crummy-attitude JFK controllers. I\'m sorry that you think every time you go there they\'re trying to kill you.

But most of all, I\'m sorry you even have to show up to endure it.

Flame

2nd Jul 2005, 22:05

Guys;

How on earth did this thread get so nasty, suely the bottom line is that....a mistake by controllers at BOS almost caused a very serious incident

Does it really matter where the best or worst ATC takes place.

Danny

3rd Jul 2005, 00:40

Why do we still have this festering feud between the two main antagonists here? Just because someone exaggarates about US aircrew not understanding where a waypoint they've been cleared to and then claiming that it happens every time doesn't need a full blown retort which only gives credence to the stupid generalising remark in the first place.

US crews, exactly as us UK crews, if we get a direct to a waypoint and we don't quite hear it correctly in that it doesn't appear to be in our flight planned route, then we just ask again and if we are still unclear we ask them to spell it out phonetically. No big deal. If the waypoint isn't in our planned route then we ask the controller to verify our routing after the waypoint and mention to him or her that it isn't in our original flight plan. What's the big deal?

Neither system is perfect and neither is dangerous, per se. It is just a fact that at times humans can make errors and iit is down to our and the controllers professionalism that we catch them in time and learn from them. No doubt in this case at BOS we will learn exactly what went wrong. Get used to it.

jumbowanabee

3rd Jul 2005, 04:40

Sorry Danny but I have to disagree. Two aircraft departing on intersecting runways controlled by two separate persons on different frequencies has to be less safe then other options available. Many in the industry would consider there is no compromise with flight safety, maybe they do not live in the real world. In this case neither pilot could see the other until far too late, and neither pilot was privy to the clearance being given to the other. As you remember the Pan Am KLM accident, all the crews knew what was going on, they were all on the same freq. The sad thing is one of them choose to ignore the doubts of his F/O. Perhaps if there had of been a collision your assessment that the procedures which continue at BOS and many other airports, not just in the USA, would be somewhat different. We work in an environment where there are multiple redundancies, where crew actions are continually monitored, engineering procedures are cross checked. In this case I would like to ask who was monitoring the two controllers. Human error did take place but there should be procedures in place which will prevent such an incident from happening. This was not the case. The system failed.

Flyrr100

3rd Jul 2005, 12:16

Idunno

You have to put up with slam dunks in ORD because you do. Thats all. It's how they get you in. If you think it's wrong call your chief pilot and tell him that you can't handle the crazy flying in the Colonies. I'm sure he'll have sympathy and re-assign you to out-and-backs with landing in the Isle of Man.

AMF

Amen brother.

maxalt

3rd Jul 2005, 12:59

because you do :E

Just as we thought then, no rhyme or reason. :yuk:

Ralph Cramden

3rd Jul 2005, 18:54

Guys...just food for thought.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Winston Churchill

Faire d'income

3rd Jul 2005, 19:49

You have to put up with slam dunks in ORD because you do. Thats all.

For a lot of us this is it in a nutshell.

For non-aviators a slam dunk approach is akin to having to pass through your gates at 80kph while safely stopping in your 10 metre driveway....with a load of passengers....in a double-decker bus.

Before someone takes the easy US bashing stick to me I would like to point out that ORD and BOS are the only two airports I would highlight. Everywhere else I've been has been at least good ( even JFK despite the lunacy of Canarsie ). I might add the poor guy on KEWR area ( NY west? ) deserves a medal for all the traffic on that frequency.

I would plead with our North American cousins that instead of the blame the idiot foreigner attitude you should stand up to poor practises if you see them on behalf of your industry and your passengers.

Flyrr100

3rd Jul 2005, 20:41

When a pilot is issued a slam dunk approach, it's a clearance for a visual approach. To execute the approach the pilot must first accept the clearance. I've turned down many approaches. And never been bashed or ridiculed for it. Not only slam dunks. Too close, bad weather, just didn't feel right. You have the option. If ORD or BOS give you a clearance for a visual and you think it's not right, refuse the clearance!
;)

maxalt

3rd Jul 2005, 21:30

What utter UTTER crapology.

West Coast

3rd Jul 2005, 21:38

"What utter UTTER crapology"

Turning down an approach clearance? Who is the PIC?

maxalt

3rd Jul 2005, 21:43

Nobody ever asks if you're visual in ORD before slam dunking you.
Its crapology.

West Coast

3rd Jul 2005, 21:50

Sure they do, perhaps not your experience but I spend a large portion of my month in and out of there, a few times a day.

maxalt

3rd Jul 2005, 22:03

I've never once heard them asking - anybody.
Maybe they know your voice and you get special treatment.

Still crapology.

Flyrr100

3rd Jul 2005, 22:50

Maxalt

If you are the PIC you can accept or refuse any clearance you feel isn't safe. Unless if in Ireland they have different rules? Here in the USA the PIC always has final authority over where and when his/her aircraft goes.

But you really knew that, didn't you?:confused:

maxalt

3rd Jul 2005, 23:05

Don't worry, we do that - where possible, but your North American colleagues on this thread referred to such behaviour as 'throwing sand in the works' or not having 'an A game'.

You seem unusually reasonable, I must say.:ok:

Flyrr100

3rd Jul 2005, 23:22

I don't give a s##t what I throw into the works. I was based in LGA for a time. Belive me they have some hard nosed controllers. But I've refused clearances, done go-arounds when they forgot to give me a landing clearance. I'm sure, under their breath, I was cursed to he$$. But, who cares! I stayed in my safe bubble, and nobody got hurt. Except my company. It was their fuel after all!

maxalt

4th Jul 2005, 12:51

Yes. Fuel.
There's the rub.

When you're jaunting around the US doing short sectors in your 737 or whatever, you've got the luxury of uplifting fuel on each sector, and taking extra whenever you feel like it.

And - fuel wise - a go around in a 737 is no big deal either.

But, when arriving into the terminal area after a long-haul flight in a widebody, we don't have the layers of fat you can afford. We're usually constrained by weight on departure. Carrying anything above flight-plan minimum is often impossible. A go-around in a heavy is therefore rather more contentious fuel-wise (as someone else already pointed out about Canarsie approaches). You can practically see the gauges dwindling before your very eyes. So much for 'safe bubbles'.

US ATC will do more than curse you under their breath if they think you are messing with them. They'll read the riot act to you on the airwaves and dismiss you to the holding pattern - where you'll sit and sweat, wondering if you should divert now, or pray the nice man will give you another chance. At his leisure.

Think AVIANCA, 1990 (http://www.answers.com/topic/avianca-flight-52)

Check 6

4th Jul 2005, 13:40

Give us a break MAXALT.

US ATC will do more than curse you under their breath if they think you are messing with them. They'll read the riot act to you on the airwaves and dismiss you to the holding pattern - where you'll sit and sweat, wondering if you should divert now, or pray the nice man will give you another chance. At his leisure.

My credentials you ask? I have been a pilot since 1967, FAA jet ATP with the last 5-1/2 years based in Italy, the previous based in the U.S. Flown into 30+ countries in my humble career.

What you state above is a gross exageration of the facts, and you know it. If you screw up, US ATC may say something to you (remember you screwed up), but they will not maliciously put an aircraft in holding for punishment. This may have occurred at some point, but this would be very rare and inappropriate.

European ATC may also say something to you if you screw up. Certainly that is better than a visit to your Chief Pilot.

Sir, please keep to the facts and minimize the Yank Bashing!

maxalt

4th Jul 2005, 14:37

If you 'screw up' thats one thing. But when ATC put me in an impossible position or make unreasonable demands with which I cannot safely comply - that is not my 'screw up', frankly - its theirs.

When I referred to 'reading the riot act' I did not mean the kind of mild reminder you'll hear from any other ATC facility worldwide.
It gets a bit nasty really.

You say you don't believe me about penal holding?
I can prove it.

Look at the Jeppesen Taxi plate for KORD. You'll find a holding area on it labelled 'Penalty Box' - its there in black and white.
Its where you get sent when ATC lose their rag if you can't understand their garbled instructions.

What kind of mentality is it that chose a name like that? And to actually put it in print too?

It simply reflects the attitude I mentioned - penal holding for the non-compliant.

GearDown&Locked

4th Jul 2005, 15:18

Sorry guys, for returning to the thread.

Just a couple of questions more:
Were both controllers in close proximity to each other (in the same room) although being on different freqs.? Even so, how is it possible to synchronize departures/arrivals with each other when they're listening to different things and trying to keep their own work list flowing? Is there any form of signaling rwy in use, or do they just shout to each other "Hey!! Now its my turn!" ?!

Is there any more examples of bad systems implementation, similar to this or not, you know and would like to share with us?
(why wait 12 to 14 months for the proper authorities to publish new recomendations when the pro's from either side of the R/T fence could help debugging/defusing situations with a high risk potential such as this IMHO).

GD&L

West Coast

4th Jul 2005, 15:37

"When I referred to 'reading the riot act' I did not mean the kind of mild reminder you'll hear from any other ATC facility worldwide"

My experience is that they save the mild reminders for mild excursions and the riot act for those worthy of it.

"Look at the Jeppesen Taxi plate for KORD. You'll find a holding area on it labelled 'Penalty Box' - its there in black and white"

Naming movement areas is usually a function of airport operations, not ATC. The two are often at odds about such things. It also happens to be a takeoff from hockey vernacular.
I've spent plenty of time in the box, ALWAYS waiting for a gate inbound or waiting for a flow time outbound to another airport. From what I've been told by ATC there they don't like to fill the penalty box because it limits their options when a plane comes off without an open gate. I could only imagine for them to send someone there because of something other than operational need you really need to have screwed the pooch. You spend much time in it?

Check 6

4th Jul 2005, 15:47

MAXALT, What does the ORD airport "penalty box" have to do with HOLDING?

I strongly agree with WestCoast in that the Jeppesen airport diagram nomenclature has no nexus to ATC. That is an Airport Operations issue.

M.Mouse

4th Jul 2005, 17:33

Having just waded through all 14 odd pages of this thread I can understand Danny's frustration!

A few observations as a pilot experienced in both longhaul and shorthaul operations and having operated all over the world for the past 20 years.

ATC in many parts of the world is dire, most of Africa, South America to name but two. In the US we are constantly suprised at what we experience because, I believe, we think that because the controllers speak a type of English language that they operate to identical procedures and standards to the UK. A similar observation can be made when looking at many other aspects of life and behaviour in the US versus the UK!

I fly for BA and we constantly have a dilemma in the US when asked to maintain 180kts or greater to, say, 4 miles because we cannot then comply with our company SOPs of being fully configured and stabilised on the approach with approach power set and the speed within +20kts of our target speed. It could be argued that our criteria are conservative but it is plain from observing operations in the US over many years that we are fairly unique in having those criteria and also the system that monitors those parameters (and a lot else) namely SESMA. It does cause us regular problems in complying with US ATC instructions.

Operating into busy US airspace the often late and sometimes multiple (LAX in particular) runway changes give the impression of a completely fluid situation with no real organised plan of action for handling inbound aircraft. Similarly I have been vectored for miles around the surrounding countryside, when ATC are busy, when I cannot help compare with the UK procedure at London where, beyond a certain traffic levels, inbounds hold in one of four holding stacks and, having been descended in the stack, are fed neatly into the approach flow at the appropriate distance from other aircraft in the line.

Another observation. A few days ago at ORD, the usual three runways in use. I always get performance figures out of the system for all three runways because it is a guess, at best, which runway will be assigned for departure. We taxied for 09L. As we approached the 32L T10 intersection we were changed to that runway for departure and also told to contact 'clearance' for a re- route. We had a completely new re-route all the way to IAH and, having received it, returned to the tower frequency where the controller instructed us to line up. Now I can accept changes but to re-program the performance data (different flap setting too) and enter a new route (if only the first few way points) allowing the other pilot time to cross check this safety critical flight data takes more than 15 seconds. When I said we were going to be a couple of minutes the controller sounded exasperated and moved us across to the other side of the runway to hold clear of other departing traffic. It put us under terrific pressure (which I can deal with) but is a recipe for making significant errors. I question whether the controllers actually appreciate what they are asking us to do.

To balance the argument the US come into their own when helping aircraft route around weather. The difference being that they can see it on their radars whereas in the UK they filter it out!

It is a testament to the US controllers skill that they handle the volumes of traffic that they do without more serious incidents but I cannot help but feel that the system could be a great deal better. Regular famil flights for controllers would be a good start.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

4th Jul 2005, 18:07

<<Even so, how is it possible to synchronize departures/arrivals with each other when they're listening to different things and trying to keep their own work list flowing?>>

No big deal at all.. I've worked a 2-runway set-up with another controller on another frequency and not said a word to him, apart from discussing the football results. All controllers work with data displays. One simply looks at the other's flight data display - everything controllers do is written down so someone else can see what's going on - and out of the window. A further example - Heathrow Approach has four holding areas; I've worked two of them on a separate frequency from a colleague who was not sitting next to me..... and not found the need to talk to him whilst we both combine two streams into one.

I guess you're not an aviation professional but you could still try and get a visit to your local ATC facility where you'd find things very interesting.

I first heard about the Penalty Box at Chicago about 30 years ago and I know what it's for..... as it was fully explained by Chicago controllers to a Heathrow controller on a working visit.

RRAAMJET

4th Jul 2005, 18:18

Excellent post, Mouse. All correct, and not just reserved for foreign carriers - I have had similar stuff with re-routing and runway changes with my US carrier. I just stay calm and tell them what I can and will not do. They get ruffled sometimes, but especially heavy, I'm not rushing off 32/T10 intersection or anywhere else, for that matter.

As I've posted previously, some of the fields we get to go to domestically are even more rushed, trying help their best friend airline, and they clearly cannot comprehend that some operators have more stringent stabilised app. criteria, or even that some types cannot extend flaps and speedbrakes at the same time. The MD-80 is particularly tricky to get down in icing conditions compared to the Boeings. Burbank is one example, LAX being perhaps the worst.

At DFW at present, 17C has only a LOC approach, and our company requires us to be stabilized by the FAF. DFW has been requesting 180 to the marker etc, and this has put a dilemma on all, with the company trying to negotiate with ATC. No solution yet.

In my opinion it's safe, but needlessly frenetic.

maxalt

4th Jul 2005, 19:08

...and the riot act for those worthy of it. i.e. anyone who doesn't comply with their impossible instructions.

The 180kts to the OM is a good example. Its given frequently and is usually impossible to comply with - unless you're prepared to break SOPs. And M.Mouse - that SOP is NOT peculiar to your company. Mine uses it too. In fact they adopted it as a result of recomendations by Flight Safety International (an American organisation!) who specify clearly the criteria for stabilised approaches in their regular ALARs releases (Approach and Landing Accident Review).

Funny, isn't it, how Americans often come up with these great safety ideas (Stabilised Approach criteria, CRM etc) and yet seem unable to apply them in their own system.

As regards the Penalty Box, its been there for 30 years as you said, and yes, everyone knows why its there - it was legend back in the 60's when we first started operating into ORD. It was referred to as the Penalty Box in a totally flippant manner by the controllers on ground frequency, and thats what it was there for - to penalise those who got lost on the taxi ways. The name stuck.

Sure, current ATC may have other uses for it, and sure, current ATC may not have chosen the name, but thats what its called, right there on the Jeppie plate, and thats why its there, and it still leaves a question mark over a system that engages in that kind of thinking. I suggest they change it - why not, as an act of good faith!

Check6, HOLDING can occur on the ground as well as in the air.
Maybe you didn't know that?

West Coast

4th Jul 2005, 19:25

I can't help but think you bring it upon yourself. I fly in to your offending airports more times in a month than you will in years and have 1/10th the problems.

"to penalise those who got lost on the taxi ways. The name stuck"

If your lost at the worlds busiest airport you haven't done your job as a professional pilot. As that pilot I would want someplace where I could regroup and figure out where I should be going.
Again, I haven't been to the box for anything other than operational needs. I'm sure its happened and you have latched on to it as the prime reason for the penalty boxes existance.

"why not, as an act of good faith!"

Another reason we are buried in being PC, because someone is offended and we must move heaven and earth to accomodate the vast minority.

Funny enuff, I operate under an SOP is likely just the same as yours with regard to being stabilized. If I'm told 180 and can't do it I tell them I'll give you xx and there isn't EVER a problem.

Danny

4th Jul 2005, 19:29

OK, in the hope of finally getting the testosterone out of this debate, MaxAlt, I too believe you were referring to 'holding' whilst airborne which is much more critical fuelwise. I agree that holding on the ground can affect your plans if you are about to go off on a min fuel plog, especially long haul but you are at least on the ground, have the option of going somewhere else on the airport where they can hopefully give you extra fuel. Most operators will be aware of extensive ground holding and will uplift extra fuel accordingly.

What I find slightly unusual is the fact that more airlines don't send their flight ops representatives to visit the various TRACONS where they have experienced problems in the past. All major airlines know where the problem ATC are, and in the case of my company they were IAD and MIA. A visit and discussion with the various TRACONS soon ironed out the problem areas and memo's were issued with the do's and don'ts. In some cases the controllers now realise that for us to comply with our SOP's all they need to do is give us an extra mile vectoring and the problem is sorted. No big deal and everyone is happy. The controllers appreciated the interaction and feedback as well as us pilots.

There is no way I believe that any of the problems mentioned in this thread couldn't be sorted out by effective liason. Mind you, if you go in with a pig headed attitude you are going to get treatment that leads to a headache.

maxalt

4th Jul 2005, 19:58

Danny, even you can surely see by now that the attitude is that there is nothing remotely wrong with their way of doing things. Indeed you seem to be of that opinion yourself.

Every response made to criticisms of US ATC in this discussion has been defensive and contradictory in nature, and laced with flip comments like 'it never happens to me' 'you didn't bring your A game' 'thats just the way it is' etc.

Do you really mean to say these folk are vaguely interested in anyone elses opinion? I doubt it. I don't think my FOM would bother going into such a lions den, and I don't blame him.

I have several hundred colleagues who fly there on a regular basis, they all have war stories, and few of them have a high regard for certain ATC units in the US. Its nothing new - like I said, I was hearing the same feedback years before I even went there myself.

I think a lot of folk are in denial over there, and its a pity that everyone is so on the defensive at the moment - I really sense a kind of siege mentality in general. Its impossible to rationalise with.

See you in the penalty box then.;)

handflying

4th Jul 2005, 20:00

About 180 till OM it all depends-if established long time ago on final it is not really a problem-it starts to get more tricky when they turn you in about 8 miles final. If a slight overshoot or anything else happens then you are looking for trouble...Is it worth it?

Check 6

4th Jul 2005, 20:07

Happy Independence Day !

Cheers,

Check 6

;) ;)

handflying

4th Jul 2005, 20:28

AMF
You don't have to agree with me..I'm just stating the ATC Saturation/Congestion Facts of Life for you. Readbacks are only helpful to the controller and therefore enhance safety up until they become a hinderance. At that point, because they eat up his time for issuing subsequent instructions and delaying what he wants to do with the BIg Picture, they become counterproductive to safety. The more aircraft, the more instructions, the less airwave time available, the more instructions, the more time readbacks for each one eat up, and so on....until him re-hearing what he just told you is getting in the way. He wouldnt be dropping the requirement if it weren't.

Im I mising something-new procedures??Since when do procedures change when it gets busy??
So next time time I am asked to switch to control tower frequency when it gets a little busy on the radio I just switch over-needless to respond no?I am using valuable ATC control time...
Guys how in the world can you agree with that?
Imagine the mess:the guy misses tower frequency and no contact in that critical phases of flight! Other options must be available!

Rananim

5th Jul 2005, 11:24

Interesting if explosive thread...some have asked for some humility this side of the pond so I would say this..US ATC are not perfect,mistakes are made..they do rely to some extent on this "gentleman's agreement" which unofficially states that a pilot,by offering absolute flexibility(within safety limits of course) to the controller,can make the controllers job so much easier..controllers know instinctively who they can rely on for this and they quite rightly push it as far as possible..they have to, to make the equation work(x aircraft in y time)...there are lots of variables of course..but mental preparation(covering all bases as it were-taxi to 09L by all means but know the contingencies ahead of time) and familiarity with that airport are the two keys...
US controllers do NOT expect everyone to play the game at such a slick tempo...they would be foolish to think it were possible..they make exceptions,devote the extra attention,and ask for favors from locals..its only when they get the feeling that you're being deliberately obstinate that they might make life a little difficult for you(Idunno,take note)..its never malicious but rather a pointed reminder..

Controllers worldwide do a very demanding job for relatively small financial reward..they deserve all the help that pilots can reasonably offer.

AVIANCA crashed because they failed to declare an emergency...MAYDAY is the internationally-recognized distress signal and it was never used.
The crash at Tenerife was the clearest case of criminal negligence by a PILOT(KLM) in the history of commercial aviation.An authoritative controller with fluent colloquial English would have prevented it but controller error was never alluded to in the Spanish report.And rightly so.

Ranger One

5th Jul 2005, 11:47

Dipping a toe in some turbulent waters...

Handflying:

Readbacks are only helpful to the controller and therefore enhance safety up until they become a hinderance. At that point, because they eat up his time for issuing subsequent instructions and delaying what he wants to do with the BIg Picture, they become counterproductive to safety.

Am I alone in seeing a problem here? If a controller/frequency is so busy that all the controller can do is issue (hopefully correct) staccato instructions and clearances (which are hopefully heard correctly) machine-gun fashion with no time for the readbacks that would normally be considered essential... well the problem is serious and dropping the requirement for readbacks is NOT the solution!

R1

Ignition Override

6th Jul 2005, 05:07

Ranger One-quite true. Even if our system allowed time for a complete readback, there must be time for a "hearback" and a limited workload which allows comprehension.

My observations here are not about BOS-I know next to nothing about it. I've flown only a limited number of times outside the US, but a bit more to Canada, where ATC sounds much less rushed; on occasion into Montreal and Toronto (we had 4 separate approach/arrival controllers there one day), a few times to Edmonton or Winnepeg. The most stressed out controllers I've ever listened to on a fairly regular basis were LAX Approach or Tower controllers several years ago on the wonderful Civet Arrival :mad: . That d@^^ ^ e& approach has no level-off to reduce from 192 to 164 knots for full flaps-and it was difficult for me even with fully extended speedbrakes and flaps 15, but I never was one of the better 757 FOs (especially in Initial Training). They once gave us an EXTRA altitude restriction which was not published, after two or three runway changes!! What an ATC system. I sympathize with many of the comments made by foreign pilots about our "flow control factory" over here.

Although based upon this mostly one-sided background, I wonder whether some traditional procedures developed at US airports, including the very contradictory "maintain 180 until C0ckroach (represents most real estate near major US airports)" is partly a result of both our previous generations of pilots and airline Training/Fleet Standards Departments wanting to be team players. We train one way in the simulator but the US is the Land Of The Real World, and we can not change it, unfortunately. Our simulator training is based upon ATC in a Perfect World, but most of this is vital for good training and checking.

Over here, and even with Air Traffic Control (?), quantifiable results and getting the job done are what count most, if we all feel that it can be somehow done safely (but we must voice concern to the other pilot and ATC if we are uncomfortable with something), by being so flexible that only very partial readbacks to ATC can take place. Several pilots are all now waiting for their turn to click the microphone button, as the next two guys/gals assume the same thing and are ready to block his readback, if not transmitted in just ONE very short partial, condensed readback. And this is with Washington, New York, Boston, Cleveland or Chicago Enroute Centers when the weather is good. How about with Approach control, or when the weather produces a cluster of major thunderstorms? I'm sure glad that I've not been to "La Garbage" (Guardia) or Boston for about a year or more.

I know nothing about the mishap in Boston, but starting many years ago I got so used to being pushed through an always over-saturated ATC system (this means time and space in the eastern US; maybe Stephen Hawking has a phrase for this?) that when I feel the need to change a clearance, it is very difficult to get through to the controller without blocking at least one call from another aircraft, thereby making it at least four times as difficult for the controller, who always has my sympathies-he/she did not create our system. On approach, a pilot who refuses to accept about 170 or 180 knots to the OM or approach Final Segment can feel that he simply can not handle what other pilots can "hack". But these are just my very generalized impressions of many, very typical Great Lakes and East Coast (from northern Florida to North Carolina the enroute situations seem ok in good weather) enroute airspace and approach scenarios at the larger airports. With certain exceptions, the problem is with our ATC system's inherited procedures, certain policies and how controllers are trained and expected to handle the many aircraft in the over-saturated areas. Doesn't each controller have to use standard procedures as with pilots, but be very flexible? To me it still is a mystery how it functions as well as it does. But are there reduced margins of error in the system because pilots try too hard to be team players? Many ATC controllers are retiring soon and must be replaced. :uhoh:

AMF

6th Jul 2005, 09:31

Danny....

Thank you for banning me after my last post. I used the time wisely, and celebrated Independence day with even more revelry than usual.

Happy 4th of July, y'all, and remember that this Logan near-miss isn't the biggest controversy to have ever flared-up in the Boston area (230 years of not listening to "reason", and counting).

Handflying...

After getting handed-off to tower by Approach and you can't get your readback heard (especially if he's the one talking nonstop), then switch freq and report in with the tower. Tower's expecting you...he knows you're coming...controllers share information. Since your presence is known to twr, there's no use trundling along for miles not hearing him (probably calling you if you wait too long, wondering wtf). Your readback to Appch becomes less relevant with every passing moment, and besides, both pilots in the cockpit should hear the frequency (if not, why not?). Additionaly, the aircraft 3 or 5 miles ahead of you was assigned the tower freq...you should've already have it tuned-in on comm stby. Information is on the approach plates as well. When it's busy, there's no reason a tower freq should come as a suprise.

If someone had a stuck mic after you recieved your final vector and were cleared for the ILS, you'd just switch to tower eventually...it's no different.

I think many are confusing "comfort level" with safety. Nobody burned-up airwave time being instructed (and reading back the instruction) to "report established on the localizer", with a subsequent exhange when they actually were established either. Nobody was "cleared to descend on the glide" (with readback). Is that omitting the "essential"as well?

It's not "essential" all the time and in every place. There's a time and place it's essential to talk to tower to be cleared to land, so talk to him if you can't get a readback in edgewise to Appch. Approach and Tower expect you to switch. It's likely Appch'll just tell you to contact tower somewhere when he issues your appch clearance anyway.

I don't see any issue in your scenario....certainly not one detrimental to safety if the crew isn't asleep.

Ranger One....

Hearing the instruction and complying are essential. Readbacks (while normally important) are not essential, for if they were, the the ATC system would collapse the moment they were omitted even though they complied with the instructions.

I'll reiterate; because our readbacks to a controller are normally followed by a silence we assume to be his affirmation they (1) do NOT validate that he heard you (he could've dropped dead when he unkeyed, but to us his silence sounds the same), and (2) since it doesn't, it therefore can't validate that you heard him correctly in the first place.

Also, the higher the workload pressure, the greater chance that a mistake may be made on his part. Additionally, if you mis-heard an instruction and read back to him your mistake, there's a greater chance that he wouldn't recognize it in order to correct you. I.e., a hearback problem

This last occurance has indeed happened with resulting certificate action by the FAA, and I'll point out (again) that the onus of responsibility is STILL with the pilot even if a tape highlights (via readback) a controller hearback problem. In other words, don't for a moment think that reading-back with an ensuing controller silence is validating instructions, and therefore your defense for not hearing if a conflict results. But the reverse isn't true....you won't be held responsible if he makes a mistake and you follow his bogus instructions, even if you don't give a readback when it's not required or impossible.

Hearing the instructions correctly and complying are the bona fide Essentials. While readbacks raise the probability of good communication in most situations, because of their limitations they don't validate or guarantee anything for him or for you...ever... and in some situations only exacerbate workload pressure and raise the probability of a mistake because airwave time is HIS most precious commodity.

In such a circumstance, why do you want to burn it up re-telling him what everyone on your crew should have heard, when he obviously considers it of lesser importance? Together, just 7 (EWR, LGA, JFK, TEB, MMU, FRG, HPN) of the NYC-area airports have over 2,000,000 operations per year. That's not the full list by any means, not to mention those aircraft transiting the area. If the controller is ultra-busy, you have no way of knowing if he's taking on other traffic due to an emergency the guy sitting next to him is dealing with, or the Queen is vistiing and needs special airspace, or some guy just blew through his altitude over at TEB and is mucking around on EWR's approach corridor screwing everyone up. They do this every day and there's no smoking holes...yet some crew can't figure out a tower frequency or has to make a turn onto final (unlike Heathrow) then it must be dangerous? That limiting readbacks on occasion represents a fundamental flaw and dire consequences are merely lucked out of?

The rules of R/Ting ("Thou shalt read back?) were not handed down from the heavens engraved in stone, and R/Ting isn't and end unto itself no matter how good you think you sound. It's an adaptable tool to be judiciously, and if ATC is busy, the controller is a far better judge of how you should use it. He talks on the radio and communicates in order to get compliance more in a week than most pilots probably do in a year.

It's looking like the main complaint is simply that the above, ORD, ATL, DFW, and LAX aren't Heathrow, as if Heathrow is the standard by which all others should measured while also pretending Heathrow could operate the way it does with similar traffic and wx consideration. Or U.S. ATC should keep people on the ground until parity is reached, otherwise they're clearly taking "safety shortcuts" because if the whole world isn't doing it (under U.K. tuteledge I guess), then it must be wrong and dangerous, a lack of evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

MaxAlt....

Most people are in the Penalty Box because they've initiated putting themselves in there due to no gate, etc., and continuing to taxi in circles makes no sense. At O'hare, the Penalty Box is penalizing someone about as often as pax are "Ooo-ing" and "Aaah-ing" at the buildings they see while taxiing along the Scenic Route. Alas, you've never understood our humor.

Stu Bigzorst

6th Jul 2005, 10:32

Some reading for you, AMF... (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG-NATS_RTDISCIP.PDF)

M.Mouse

6th Jul 2005, 16:50

AMF

The thing that truly disturbs me about your analysis is that it is completely arbitrary in that it is in the mind of the individual what he or she considers essential or important to read back. You have reasoned which readbacks are unnecessary in your mind.

I am sure we would all have many and varied answers to the question of what is essential to readback.

By your reasoning we end up with a type of anarchy and could be the reason that US pilots often sound, in the more disciplined European environment, a little gash, wholly undeserved because I am also sure that US pilots are as capable, safety concious and concientious as any others.

Where does it all end? We see the likes of Ryanair, Emirates, etc. all announcing big expansion plans. At some point somebody has to say enough and decide what is a safe and feasible level of traffic that ATC can reasonably handle at any given airport.

Max Revs

7th Jul 2005, 04:42

One thing I have often heard said by pilots is: If JFK was located in a "foreign" country, American Pilots would refuse to fly there on the grounds that it was seriously deficient in so many aspects.
I have to admit, when flying the Canarsie approach, in marginal visibility, with a tailwind, with the instruction from ATC to "keep your speed up" and still waiting to be told if it will be the left or right runway that you will be landing on, I have asked myself the question "what am I doing here?" or "is this any way to be operating in the 21st Century?".
Some of our American friends seem to be suggesting in various posts, that operating on the edge / keeping things JUST this side of safe/pushing crews to their "A" limit is a good way to do business. Excuse me if I disagree.
It shouldn't be a game of "how many, how fast, how hot, how clever!" Otherwise, there will be the occasional "how shocking!!" :ugh: :ugh:

Ignition Override

7th Jul 2005, 04:43

AMF-that was an excellent explanation of how to use the ATC system in the northeast. Many airports have so much traffic, even far from that area, that you must always question whether you were switched to tower freq. Scanning the two or three tower freq's on the approach chart can help us decipher which one, when they blurt out "contact 118.3 over 'Mafia' (at ORD)". So long Meigs Field.

Considering the number of airports in a small area, how does the number of high-performance aircraft movements per day compare with northwestern Europe? Say, between Brussels and Frankfurt etc?

AMF

7th Jul 2005, 05:56

M. Mouse......

There's nothing arbitrary and no need to be disturbed....I readback everything except in those rare circumstances where the controller himself is not requiring them, if I'm interrupting his dialogue, or it's clearly irrelevant and doing so will either prevent me from staying ahead of the airplane or divide up cockpit duties in such a way to be detrimental to safety in a critical phase of flight...such as 3 miles past the point of being told to contact tower by appch because the freq is too jammed to do it (at that point, you don't want two pilots working 2 different freqs on short final, one who is flying the airplane). That defies logic.

Stu.....

Thanks for the link. You'll notice in Incident 5 that the crew's readback interrupted the controller's transmission so the controller never heard it. Mis-hearing the clearance and reading back a too-low altitude didn't avert the CFIT. No doubt the crew interpreted the controller's silence to their assumed-to-be-transmitted-and-heard readback as affirmation, and re-inforced in their own minds what was unfortunately a mistake.

The unfortunate irony is that it was the quick-draw readback transmission itself that interrupted the controller's re-iterated critical instruction....."report level at three thousand feet".

The glaring difference with that incident and what I've been saying is that the CFIT took place in a NON-radar environment. I specifically refered to under radar control, where the controller observes your compliance.

Non-radar, that crew should have picked up on their own interpretation error, given that they thought they heard clearance to a lower altitude than what their charts/plates would have indicated was allowed when established on a route/arrival/approach. In that case we're wholly responsible for our own survival when it comes to avoiding terrain, and that means adhering to min altitudes and staying established. Instead of reading-back in that case, they should have noted this conflict and queried the controller. Unlike a mere readback such as they gave, a controller's silence in response to a question will generate more questioning. And of course, descending before sorting it out is always out of the question.

The controller didn't query the apparent (to him) lack of a readback by the crew. I specifically indicated in a previous post that in a non-radar environment readbacks are indeed the best tool for the controller raise the probability of compliance and that communication took place. Unlike all the examples given by others regarding ORD, NYC, etc....that controller was blind, and therefore should have indeed queried the crew. No disagreement there.

However, the main causal factor was mis-hearing the clearance, and it only serves to highlight that BOTH pilots must focus and maintain a disiplined listening watch, and confirm between themselves they heard the same thing. This is essential, and of paramount importance because "T-ing" until you're blue in the face doesn't make up for sloppy CRM where both pilots don't hear and confirm between themselves.

In this accident the controller DID issue the correct instruction after all, and the main breakdown leading to this CFIT wasn't R/T dicipline, but lack of CRM and situational awareness.

junior_man

8th Jul 2005, 02:50

Wow, what a lot of noise!
Some info: LAX changes runways to help get you
on the same complex as your gate. BOS uses two tower frequencies as a solution to prevent runway incursions. Looks like it needs some changes. 15R is not used often, only for acft that can't depart on the other runways due to WAT limits.
As a foreigner living and flying in the USA, I find it hard to believe some of these wild tales.
I fly in and out of BOS and LGA frequently. The controllers treat us well. They expect that your flying skills are somewhat beyond the full flaps ref + 5 on 20 mile final though.
I enjoy the opportunity to fly the River visual at DCA, the Expressway visual at LGA and the Canarsie at JFK. But then we do these things in the simulator too. Proper training helps. On the occasion that more is asked of us than I feel comfortable with, we tell the controller and get a different clearance. They are usually polite about it. Occasionally someone is a bit short about it, but I don't let that get my panties in a knot. If you can't do it, or don't feel comfortable doing it, don't accept it. The PIC is the final authority.
If you didn't like how you were handled, have you ever asked ATC for a telephone number after landing? They will gladly give you one and you can discuss how the procedures do not work with your companies procedures etc. ? If you haven't, don't bitch about it here, you should have talked to the folks who needed to know.
Yes, it is different in the USA than in the UK. There are a lot more airplanes here than anywhere else. In fact there are probably more airplanes in California than in Europe.
I have flown all over the US, canada, Mexico, Central America, Caribbean and Europe. I have enjoyed it all. It is a little bit different in each country. And on the overnights I even found some places they drive on the other side of the road.

Stu Bigzorst

8th Jul 2005, 06:29

AMF,

I agree with you, right up to the very last bit.

and the main breakdown leading to this CFIT wasn't R/T dicipline

The point of the document, and this branch of the discussion, is that poor R/T by the controller was a major contribution. He did not follow the readback rules. If he did, he would have heard the fact that an enormous error had occured (how does anyone start a published procedure by blindly descending to 400'?) and he may have been able to save the day. He didn't listen to the readback properly.

I see the point of view you are expressing. It's just that over here we consider proper readback (and listenback) to be an improvement to safety that is big enough to not only make it worthwhile, but mandatory.

I appreciate the outstanding issues here (BOS); was poor R/T discipline a contributory factor? Don't know. Will it take a mid-air at a major US airport before someone decides that readback of clearances is mandatory in the US?

If the system is too clogged to allow readbacks, then the system needs changing. The UK is also suffering from this - in particular some London frequencies are too busy - but we will not scrap the readback rule because it is just too important. We have to improve the system by means of more controllers with more frequencies. As usual, money is the problem.

I particularly liked this (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/interpretiverule.pdf) document, where this primary concern is one of liability, not safety! God bless Am.......

Stu

handflying

8th Jul 2005, 11:31

AMF quote:Tower's expecting you...he knows you're coming...controllers share information.

AMF:Lucky these twrORD controllers shared their part of information!!! And their supervisors what were they doing? Drinking
cofee or smoking a cigarette? In what type of "comfort level" were they? I don't think we allready treated that part of
the topic: all controllers are human and make mistakes (like all pilots make mistakes-that's why we are 2or3) but aren't
they followed by supervisors who should have broken the chain of errors that lead to an accident?

Even I agree in the app switching to twr case safety isn't really reduced without read-back and complying like you say is
their most important issue I think crews should be put in the picture in advance about it. What if in the Atis they would,
starting from a certain level of business, advise everybody "after being instructed to contact twr by app no readbacks are
requested" ? As we are all used to make readbacks all the time and almost everywhere you just do it and sometimes block the
frequency and use even more time!! Then it has an adverse effect! When are readbacks essential and when are they not??
Common sense maybe for you flying in there twice a week but ORD might be a very occasional destination for many pilots; some
people might not know the way they operate there every day and know what they are expected. I guess I know better then you
the way ATC wants me to operate at the apts I am flying to 5 times a month.

If deviating from standard way of operating let people know.

Another question: isn't there a way of reducing frequency occupation? Adding frequencies or is that a bad idea?or does that
cost too much? Or does that make controllers earn less money?

By the way I have nothing against US ATC, all the contrary. I think they are very good and helpfull.

HD: How many "descent on the glide"-"AFTER the departing...line up " UK differences are there? Please let me be MEGA-
dangerous and respond to your colleagues "BEHIND the...line up and wait BEHIND"-"cleared for the ILS" because pilots
fly to many countries and we can't adapt to every country's small caprices. Nevertheless I think UK atc is very well too.

Faire d'income

8th Jul 2005, 13:21

The vast difference between attitudes towards certain ATC centres in the states ( or anywhere else ) is probably down to " better the devil you know " . Regular operators into anywhere know the traps and pitfalls and effortlessly avoid them. Those of us who use these places less frequently don't see the crazy clearance coming so easily and certainly don't appreciate it.

Something that hasn't been mentioned here is the overall trend within the industry to the margins of safety. This cannot be good. More operators are getting close to 900 hours annually from their crews. As the low cost virus spreads more skippers experience more pressure in areas such as MEL and fuel decisions. The nearest suitable airport often isn't in the minds of your bosses thus adding further pressure.

Lots of groups are under constant relentless pressure in IR forums ( look at FR ) and now it seems morale is nothing more than an unecessary cost. In Ireland there is a concerted campaign by one national newspaper to demean our profession as much as libels laws permit. Thank you MOL.

All of the above contribute to constantly increasing stress levels which are not helped by " you gotta bring your A game " type comments.

Gargleblaster

8th Jul 2005, 14:19

I am just a poor amateur pilot, so have nothing to contribute on what happened in BOS, nor on procedures in various airports around the world. What I write below is simply an observation as a PAX and a question. My observation seems to match what pilots have written earlier in this thread on arrival procedures at ORD. <end of disclaimer>

I'm a fairly frequent PAX to LHR and ORD (KLM, Lufthansa, BA), and have often found the approach and landing at ORD interesting to the point that I'd not do stuff like that to passengers in my C172.

Last time was rather interesting. We circled, turned left, turned right, generally wandered arond the area for 20 minutes, probably at 3000' - 5000'. Then suddently all at once: Engines to idle, gear down, flaps all the way out, speedbrakes out, 45 degree turns initiated with ailerons to the stops, rapid deceleration, reduced G's.

The turn on final was quite steep and made at around 1500'. The final was no more than 2-3 NM, a little more than the length of the runway. Bursts of thrust being applied frequently. We landed hard and late with heavy braking.

Why am I writing all of this ?

Because I could see on many passenger's faces that they were NOT at all comfortable with this, and that's my point.

(When we departed again, as we crossed another runway on the takeoff run, there was another B747 seconds from touching down on that runway. Also rather uncomfortable.)

No, I'm not scared of flying, neither as a PIC nor as a PAX. (I've lived in HKG and flown in and out of Kai Tak)

No, I'm not saying this was unsafe in any way.

I'm just asking, why does this have to be so at ORD when other fairly large airports can bring down their traffic in an seemingly much more nice and orderly manner ?

I am assuming the brace position now and preparing to receive any replies :-)

NZLeardriver

8th Jul 2005, 16:57

My FAR/AIM says that readbacks are required.

Spitoon

8th Jul 2005, 18:38

handflying, you might find Appendix 1 of the UK Radio-telephony Manual (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF) of interest.

Ignition Override

10th Jul 2005, 01:33

Faire d'income: Yep. Yesterday DTW Michigan only had light rainshowers forecast, but within about 30 minutes level 6 thunderstorms developed (after landing waited one hour on ramp-it was shutdown). We must know what nearby airports are suitable alternates (mostly when no alternate airport or fuel is planned, as is quite common, even if light rain is in forecast) for any place. If we had come in about ten minutes later, we would have asked ATC whether the full length runway was available at Toledo, Ohio, maybe Windsor, Ontario. We had just told DTW Approach that we needed to go to Toledo, and suddenly :rolleyes: they said that we could get into 03R with limited vectoring.

Never use up most of your cont. fuel far from your destination.

dawgweed

10th Jul 2005, 04:24

GargleBlaster,

The biggest reason you experience things such as you did at ORD is the airport layout. Have a look at the ORD layout (http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0507/00166AD.pdf) and then have a look at the ATL layout (http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0507/00026AD.pdf) or the LAX layout (http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0507/00237AD.pdf)

Some airports are just more difficult to control than others. Putting 982,000 aircraft movements per year into ORD must be extremely difficult for ATC. There is even talk about reducing the flights allowed into ORD.

http://www.faa.gov/news/reduce_delays/media/O'HareNotice.htm

Flyingphil

5th Aug 2005, 05:39

Hey Guys, according to the KORD-Case that is not an ATC-Problem.

Just behind RWY 09L/T is a small town.

By a lawcase the inhabitants of this town managed to have a 3000ft-Minimum-Rule, meaning that airplanes have to have at least 3000ft while passing the city-center.

So Pilots do not have a chance for a straight approach, you guys have to descent very hard in the Final Section.
A Lufthansa-Pilot once told me that he passed the IM at about 1300ft that day :( :* - so in this case you can not really blame the ATC.

Around CHI there are some more law-based operational constraints so that T/O mostly are done by full-power-rollings :ok: to climb with high rates and avoid passing sourrounding towns to low

Check 6

11th Aug 2005, 09:32

Click on the link to see article on the New procedures at BOS Logan (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/08/10/officials_to_unveil_a_logan_safety_plan/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+City%2FRegion+News)

(Just when you thought this thread went away.)

Check 6

:E :E

maxalt

11th Aug 2005, 11:43

In many cases, pilots have acknowledged tower instructions to stop short of an active runway, but for unknown reasons did not stop or took wrong turns onto active runways. I know the reason!

The reason is the practice by ATC of regularly using runways as taxiways.

Yes Yes, I know, it expedites the flow, blah blah.
But thats the reason.

vaneyck

13th Aug 2005, 10:20

Article in today's NY Times on high error rates at TRACON in New York. Also on the backbiting and long-simmering dislike between the controllers and the FAA.

On at least 13 occasions since July 11, air-traffic controllers have mistakenly ordered airplanes to fly too close to one another in the skies above New York. Those incidents, about six times the average error rate, are prompting more intense finger-pointing between two longtime opponents - the controllers' union and the Federal Aviation Administration.

The F.A.A. and the controllers have a long history of animosity, but the rift between the two widened early this year when the federal agency began to reduce staffing levels, an effort to gain greater control over the New York Tracon.
.....
During low-traffic hours, the F.A.A. has sometimes put one controller in charge of an area that is normally split into two sectors, or has assigned one controller to a sector that is often managed by two. But under the new schedules, union officials say, it is doing both far more often.
.....
In June, the F.A.A. said that abuse of sick leave and overtime was common at the Tracon. That volley followed complaints by the Tracon's controllers earlier in the year of dozens of "operational errors," cases in which controllers directed planes so that they flew closer to each other than regulations allow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/13/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/13control.html?pagewanted=print

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

13th Aug 2005, 10:41

<<I know the reason! The reason is the practice by ATC of regularly using runways as taxiways. >>

Maxalt..... they just may not have another option so don't blame ATC please. They have to do the best they can with the concrete they're given. Runway 23 at Heathrow was regularly used for taxying while it was still an active runway and this must apply to hundreds of airports around the world.

ARINC

13th Aug 2005, 22:40

First post for me here I'm not qualified to comment on the airmanship or ATC involved in this.

However I did want to highlight the use of Automatic Dependant surveilance broadcast software ( ADS-B) this is basically an addon for TCAS 2000/3000 T2CAS. It's a software enhancement that uses Surface area movement management and spacing techniques to provide clear indications to crew of runway incursions on the ground and/or spacing problems in the approach phase. The display can be dedicated or used as part of an EFB.

Some features :-

On the ground runway incursions typically produce a red marked runway on an airport plan depiction

In the approach phase it will greatly improve CDA's and typically provide 90 sec spacing in good wex and 105 Sec spacing in poor wex. The system gives you the speed distance and identity of the A/C in front and will also provide speed commands. Slow down Speed up . You never know we might even get to the point where we don't need controllers. Just really good pilots. In fact we might not even need them. Just really good engineers...:ok:

and UPS are testing it next year.

Duchess_Driver

13th Aug 2005, 22:51

This seems all very well from the flight deck point of view - but what about tug drivers crossing the active when not cleared to do so?

Lon More

15th Aug 2005, 11:08

Avweb (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/452-full.html#190362) carries the latest from NATCA and the FAA on this

SaturnV

16th Nov 2005, 12:33

The NTSB has released a computer simulation of the near-collision at Boston's Logan Airport between an Aer Lingus flight and a US Airways flight, both departing nearly simultaneously on intersecting runways.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/mostwanted/index.htm

The vertical separation was 106 feet and the horizontal separation was 379 feet. Excerpted below is an article in today's Boston Globe on this incident. The Globe published a link to the computer simulation which has probably led to high demand on the NTSB servers as the simulation is currently very slow to load.

WASHINGTON -- The National Transportation Safety Board, citing a near-collision of two passenger jets at Logan International Airport in June, upbraided federal aviation officials yesterday, saying it is unacceptable that pilots still don't get direct warnings about impending collisions from ground radar systems.

The eight to 11 seconds it takes for air traffic controllers to get the warning from radar and relay it to pilots could be the difference between a close call and a disaster, safety board members said.
......

Yesterday, the Federal Aviation Administration announced that on Friday Logan became the first of 21 airports in the nation to get a software patch designed to fix a glitch in ground radar systems that prevents the systems from detecting planes approaching each other on intersecting runways.

In at least three incidents in the past year, including the June 9 near-collision, Logan's warning system did not give an alert because of the software error.

A new computer animation confirms that the US Airways and Aer Lingus planes, carrying 381 passengers and crew, came within 106 feet vertically and 379 feet horizontally of crashing into each other, officials of the National Transportation Safety Board said. The pilots of the US Airways jet, Captain Henry Jones and First Officer James L. Dannahower, received a safety award last month from a regional FAA office for keeping their plane on the ground during takeoff and avoiding a potential catastrophe.

The software upgrade that Logan received Friday will be temporary until Logan and 13 other airports nationwide get a new, more sophisticated ground radar system that works better at night and in bad weather. FAA officials have not said when Logan would receive that system, which costs $8.5 million, but the agency has set a nationwide deadline to have the systems installed by 2011.

............

Logan, the nation's 17th-busiest airport with 1,250 daily arrivals and departures, had no officially reported runway incidents between Oct. 1, 2003, and Sept. 30, 2004. Since then, Logan has tallied 16 incidents, more than double the total for the previous three-year period and the largest number of runway incursions at a single airport nationwide.

The FAA sent a team to Logan in October to try to determine the cause of the increase. A final report on that investigation could be released later this month, FAA officials said. Nationwide, the number of runway incursions dropped from 327 between Oct. 1, 2003, and Sept. 30, 2004, to 324 between Oct. 1, 2004 and Sept. 30.