Attention LHR Controllers

[Sean Dell]

Just a quick question - have the CAA been with you these past couple of weeks? It's just that a few toys have been thrown out of prams recently over the RT - which is unusual for a normally laid back (yet professional) bunch of guys and gals. I won't go into any more detail suffice to say - I recently received via our management a complaint and the tape recording of the RT exchange which at the time had seemed innocuous. I was amazed the controller had gone into print - is there some cage rattling going on or an alterior motive? Just curious....

[Gonzo]

I don't know of any specifics in this case, but there has been no edict from the CAA/SRG or similar. However, crews' R/T has been getting progressively worse, especially on mandatory readbacks.

Some recent incidents (lining up in the wrong order, etc) might have been avoided had all the readbacks been in the required format.

Edit for shocking apostrophe placement.

[Sean Dell]

Gonzo - We seem to be the straw that broke this particular controller's back on this occasion - Can't we have some friendly feedback ahead of this sort of report writing (and anyway don't you guys normally say that you're filing at the time ?) - it's just that those of us who actually pride ourselves on decent CAP413 (or whatever it is now) phraseology get a tad miffed when we are pulled up for genuine mistakes (which incidently was mitigated by ourselves). It just makes flying/taxiing afterwards just a little bit more stressful whilst we disect the situation and try and work out who rattled his/her cage!

Keep up the otherwise excellent work!
ATB

[VectorLine]

I think ATCOS (and pilots) are wrong to announce on the RT that they "are going to file". It's like shouting, "I'm telling my Mum!"

If the reporter believes that safety was at risk, an MOR is filed and that's it.

By the way, all airlines should be receiving a polite letter from NATS chairman re: pilot RT standards. It's not just at EGLL where it is bad.

BA are introducing RT sampling as part of their competency checks - nice one :ok: Every pilot with an RT licence should have to revalidate it every now and again.

The recent 10 day level bust trial conducted by NATS showed that 600 wrong readbacks were prevented from becoming level busts.

97% of all SSEs are because of Human Error. If we keep RT 'by the book' can you imagine the huge improvement we could make without any fancy 'destination statements'?!

[Sean Dell]

VL - I am happy that something is being done about poor RT because that means that there won't be too many straws on the controllers back when, heaven forbid, someone makes a simple mistake which they then mitigate (ie. no safety risk IMHO).

Also, what are the rules/etiquette regarding filing? For example, when we mention we have a wake encounter why do you guys ask if we are putting pen to paper? That's not telling mum is it? I personally think that both parties filing can only enhance Flight Safety as a balanced argument is then created.

Also - can I suggest that if we are going on a 'keeping RT by the book crusade' then maybe we can pressurise some of our European bretheren to improve their own RT by practising it at home too.

Oh and maybe some of our collegues from across the pond could actually read the book.

I, in the meantime, will go and brush up on my own RT and error trapping skills so that I avoid the vitriol in the future!

ATB :ok:

[5milesbaby]

Sean Dell, for wake turbulence encounters, we ask if you are filing so that we can also put a form in to preserve the RTF/radar recordings should they be needed, thats all.

[GT3]

The reason we ask about filing after a wake encounter is that we have to send a form as do both aircraft involved. Its not an MOR but a Wake Vortex Report form.

R/T standards have become very poor over the last year at LHR on both sides of the mic to be honest. Noticed an article in the most recent edition of CHIRP about the very thing. I think that the incident you refer to above about being the last straw was probably a case of being in the wrong place and after so many R/T issues in one session it can be annoying. Especially when Big Airways crews start telling you how to do Heathrow Ground. Its not like we tell them how much flap to select on departure!

[/Rant]

[Sean Dell]

Thanks for the info 5miles - now I know. Does my 'both sides of the story' theory have any mileage or will we still be keeping MOR cards close to our chests?

GT3 - I can appreciate your concerns too - so lets turn this post into a positive. Having pointed out what is annoying for us (being that 'straw') - what can we do better to stop pi$$ing you guys off - specifically.



ATB:D

ps - What's the deal on famil flights these days - just for new ATCOS ? Or can anyone still come along ? I'll swap you for a visit to your new theme park attraction - when does it open?

[GT3]

I think general slackness on the R/T. Inability to readback, especially in the correct order:

ATC: "Speedbird 123 after the landing company 777 cross 27L"

Often gets read back as "Speedbird 123 cross 27L after the landing company 777"

This causes a slight stop in heartbeats as the company 777 is no doubt on a short final and the whole crux of a conditional clearance is condition followed by clearance, thus reading back the condition then the clearance gives us the idea that it has been fully understood then will be correctly followed.

Also the sniping on the R/T is getting a lot of ATCOs backs up. "Can't we go first" "How long do we have to wait" "Wouldn't it be better if...." I fully understand that there are a LOT of commercial pressures on Pilots today, however we are simply doing our best on the first come first served principle - with some adaptions to give an expeditios service. At the college we had it drummed into us that we are to provide Safe, Orderly & Expedtious handling of traffic. On the whole we do but the "help" some crews try to give is often offputting and sometimes are real annoyance.

Out of interest what do we do that gets your backs up?

Cheers

ps. Fam Flights should be open to all!

[Cartman's Twin]

Hello Folks!

On the subject of deteriorating RT discipline I, along with several colleagues, have a couple of common 'issues'.

Within the TMA I am sure that all you professional, respectful pilots note that on the SID chart it asks you to report, on first contact with 'London Control', Callsign, SID being flown, passing alt, cleared level, etc etc. On a busy sector there is nothing more frustrating than having to ask for each item individually. When asked to confirm the cleared level the number of times the requested cruise level is muttered, or the final SID level, is amazing! Often this is a language issue but nevertheless it erodes what little RT and thinking time we have left.

I'm sure that there's an element of trying to save RT time but QSY responses with no callsign are a false saving and potentially very dangerous too.

I'm not attempting to 'finger point', and a majority of major European airlines are pretty darn good, I just hope to raise your awareness. The situation does appear to be deteriorating and we are starting to log these much more carefully than in the past in an effort to identify any common factor (eg airline). To put it in perspective I was working the Dover departures/BIGGIN/TIMBA inbounds last night between 10 and 11 local and there were no fewer than 15 incorrect initial reports and 12 goodbyes with incorrect frequencies/no callsigns - even my girlfriend isn't that bad!! (And if the BA pilot who fluffed his QSY several times a couple of days ago on a MID is out there, I've checked and you don't look anything like her...!) That equates to at least 5 minutes RT 'wasted' in a one hour period. Like I said, an observation and in no way an attack, just for awareness!

[Gonzo]

Sean,

As I'm sure you're aware, one comes across both ATCOs and pilots who are more able, and some who are less able, to take the 'big picture' into account.

I believe it is bad practice to enter into 'discussions' about mistakes on the R/T, as it can only distract the flight crew's attention, and anything that does that, especially outbound, if only a small amount, is potentially dangerous. You guys have enough to worry about without me passing critique!

We both can name colleagues who get annoyed sooner than others, over somewhat trivial matters, such as rolling slightly further down the runway than one might expect. :rolleyes:

Keep up the good work with the CAP413!

[PPRuNe Radar]

I think ATCOS (and pilots) are wrong to announce on the RT that they "are going to file". It's like shouting, "I'm telling my Mum!" If the reporter believes that safety was at risk, an MOR is filed and that's it.

The reason an ATCO is supposed to tell the pilot he is filing is so that any relevant information can be placed in the flight log or voyage report by the pilot.

Then when it's tea, no biscuits, and hats off, in front of the Chief Pilot 5 or 6 weeks after the incident at least there's some chance of remembering what the hell he is going on about.

It works the same way in reverse too. If a pilot is filing for something involving ATC, then unless they are told at the time (or by a phone call to the Supervisor on landing), there is a very real chance that any radio or radar recorded data may have been overwritten (mandatory 30 days retention for radio tapes, 15 I think for radar, and 6 months for strips). As it may take a bit of time to filter through the company reporting system, then SRG, then the ATS providers management chains, before getting back to the ATCO involved, there is a strong chance they won't remember anything about it either.

[GT3]

We both can name colleagues who get annoyed sooner than others, over somewhat trivial matters, such as rolling slightly further down the runway than one might expect.

No surely not!!!

[Gonzo]

'Tis true I say!:E

[Ops and Mops]

As would I! :}

And whilst the topic is alive, the amount of time both pilots AND controllers spend "having a go" at each other on the RT is also getting silly.

If one or other does something worthy of complaint, DO NOT take issue with it over the RT. Pick up the phone on the ground, or if that fails, send in a CHIRP/Safety Observation.

Getting ar$ey over the RT is not only extremely unprofessional, but it may unsettle the other party whilst they are trying to continue with the task in hand, thereby presenting even more of a flight safety risk!

Alternatively they may be laughing so hard at how much of a nob you have just made yourself look, look that they are unable to continue!:E

[Gonzo]

Alternatively they may be laughing so hard at how much of a nob you have just made yourself look

Or perhaps your own colleagues are also laughing!

[Mr R Sole]

Was sat early one morning at ABZ a few weeks ago and as usual there was the usual abundance of CTOTs for southbound flights. Ground had a message saying that they on that occasion could not file a ready message and that it would have to be done through your company. The ATCO apologised to all affected for the trouble caused but I was flabbergasted when a driver on a Midland Minibus bound for LHR asked the ATCO to 'quote from legislation where this new rule came from'. I was annoyed at the arrogance that was displayed and the fact that R/T time was being eaten up on which was usually a busy time! Utterly ridiculous!

Good to see that ABZ ATCOs are enforcing the initial call on departure, which is still poorly done with details omitted in some cases.

Maybe the days of flight crew having their FRTOLs automatically renewed should be brought into question?

Anyway, I was told one story recently, which I could barely believe, which as it happens involved a Midland Minibus and a Midland Regional Embraer, which were at LHR. The Embraer was in front of the Airbus in the queue and the departure controller said to the Airbus 'After the company Embraer departs line up' and the following response was 'After the not so company Embraer departs line up'! Anyway after that passed and the Embraer was rolling the word 'B a s t a r d s' was broadcasted with the finger pointing at the Midland crew in their bus! Company politics do not belong on the R/T and I hope action was taken for this 'childish' action. The Airbus crew should be ashamed and should have received a big bollocking but no doubt nothing happened!

It is just purely a coincidence that both stories involve Midland mainline crew!

[Point Seven]

quote:
We both can name colleagues who get annoyed sooner than others, over somewhat trivial matters, such as rolling slightly further down the runway than one might expect.


Rolling down the runway at Heathrow.
Oh no no no no no.

Time for a b$**ocking.
Ohhhhh yes.

[GT3]

R Sole,

BMI Regional pilots have a bad attitude when they get let into LHR at weekends. Comes across to us as if its the first time they have been let into the big boys playground and have to show off. Had an altercation on the R/T myself with one. I (somewhat unproffesionally) did bite a little and gave a response, when the pilot wished to continue it I then stopped and just carried on. There were a few quips from pilots aimed at the BMI.

[greek-freak]

GT3:

ATC: "Speedbird 123 after the landing company 777 cross 27L"

Often gets read back as "Speedbird 123 cross 27L after the landing company 777"

I am not an ATCO but involved in ATM software development and ACC simulation at EEC some time ago.

My question is if this is specifiied somewhere that one has to readback in the correct order. I perfectly understand your argument here but still there is no official guideline for the readback order if I am not mistaken.

This "cross behind landing acft" brings the "behind landing .... line-up and wait behind " discussion to my mind, so why not avoid the instructions with "behind" entirely?

Just a naive question, thanks.

[GT3]

So omiting the behind part would therefore mean NO conditional clearances? Or have I missed something.

[greek-freak]

GT3:

This was just a friendly question, not a suggestion by a non-specialist.
So why not omit conditional clearances, though I do not know if this is possible in your working environment, in order to avoid getting angry when they are read back in reverse order?

[GT3]

Sorry didn't mean to come across angry. The problem of conditional clearances has been brought up recently and there are attempts to ban them. However the traffic movement levels at Heathrow are dependant on conditional clearances so we can't really do without them.

I'm not 100% sure on this but when I was at the college I am sure that there was something in the Mats pt1 about condition follwed by clearance. But maybe I am wrong.

[greek-freak]

Thanks for the info GT3 :ok:

[Sean Dell]

GT3

In answer to your earlier question - there's not a great deal that gets up our nose (other than what I have alluded to earlier) from you guys apart from my favourite 'listen out before you transmit XYZ' when you have been listening out and just happen to have transmitted at the same time as someone else.

A couple of other thoughts/suggestions

Could we not have an auto freq change on vacating the runway like at Schipol?

When might we get PDC (Pre Departure Clearence) like CDG/BRU etc and DATIS - is it in the pipeline

Thanks for the responses

ATB

[Gonzo]

PDC is in the pipeline....they say Oct next year.

Auto freq change wouldn't really work, as in some configurations you might go to one of two freqs., and depending on which stand you're ending up at it is 50/50 as to which GMC you talk to, so I have to ask them.

Also, as it gets quieter and we combine GMC on to one freq., how would that change be promulgated? By ATIS? If so we'd need to give more than 30 mins notice of splitting off or bandboxing, and even then you'd be surprised by how many a/c don't seem to listen to the ATIS!

[Scott Voigt]

GT3;

Actually you could do without conditionals, you just don't want too <G>... There are many places that do it without using it and it works just fine. It's all what people get used to...

regards

Scott

[Gonzo]

Scott, yes we could do away with conditionals.

However, as Heathrow depends on them to keep everything moving we would soon grind to a halt with major delays, or NATS/the airlines/BAA would all have to agree to decrease the number of flights.

It's not a case of what we want. We
want to provide the safest and most efficient possible service. If it's determined by the regulator that no longer allowing the use of conditionals is the way forward, that's fine, but in that case we would want our declared capacity to decrease accordingly.

I don't think I'm sticking my neck out to say that it's unlikely that's going to happen!

[GT3]

Which the first or the last?

In fact no you don't need to answer that one!

[BOAC]

If I may interject - yes please, I would need to know if you are filing ANYTHING for the reasons stated above. Likewise I would always inform you if I were to initiate. Never happened yet (in the UK). I must say that I have had very few problems with UK ATC, and the few have been sorted out most efficiently.

EG. A small 'fluff' over a level clearance in Scottish airspace a couple of years ago and I was told it was being filed. I therefore reported to company, but received a call from ATC in my hotel later and the error was pinpointed. Superb way of doing it (where possible, of course), and no feathers fluffed.

I'm sure the majority of us have no problems - but it is nice to know, 'cos then the summons to god's office comes as less of a shock :D

[GT3]

cos then the summons to god's office comes as less of a shock

It sure does!