Giving pilots choice

[PapaNovember]

I would like to ask the audience their opinion about whether it is advisable to give pilots alternatives, when either would suit ATC just fine. Obviously it's good to keep pilots in the picture, but too much information uses lots of valuable RT for maybe a negligible gain when the ATCO can probably make a reasonable decision himself.

I expect there won't be a straight answer, because as usual it all depends on the workload, the situation and many other circumstances, but I hope that through the debate I can make better judgements in the future, and get ideas for more succint phraseology.

I couple of enroute examples to spark the debate, then:

1. Two aircraft at the same level will be traffic on a fix ahead. I don't mind giving a vector for separation or offering an available level. Possible phraseology:
"BAW1234, traffic at your level over DGO. Expect a left turn and 3 additional track miles for separation. Higher level is available without restrictions"

2. Two aircraft at the same level on the same route don't have enought miles between them to be passed as they currently are to an adjacent ACC which requires a bigger separation. Again I don't mind vectoring for spacing or offering a different level.
"IBE5231, expect vectoring and 4 additional track miles for spacing before ENDAY. Higher level is available without restrictions"


So what is your view on the subject, then?

Regards,
PN

[BOAC]

Papa - if only ATC the world over would do it your way. The number of times I have been given 45 degress l/r (to avoid disturbing a French aircraft's routeing :D ) to find WHEN I ASK that by changing level (up or down) I could continue on flight plan are numerous. I vote for it, as long as it does not compromise R/T space.

[Frunobulax]

Whenever I offer an option to a pilot I'd expect him to have any preferrences.

If the pilot himself doesn't know what is better for him at the moment and he cannot decide then how am I supposed to know it?

In other words, dear pilots: whenever you are given a choice - choose.

[Timothy]

Personally I think pilots should be brought more into the planning, where convenient.

Too often we are left wondering what ATC are planning for us, and would like to play a part.

I have even been given a clearance to join airways and an IFR clearance across the London TMA when I had intended to route underneath (by an over-enthusiatically helpful London Mil ATCO.) He could have saved a lot of everyone's time by just asking. As it was I was too embarrassed to say that that wasn't what I wanted and just accepted it.

But I do agree that if we are given the choice we should decide quickly and convey our choice clearly and unambiguously.

[ItchyFeet2]

Give pilots a choice, eh?

Great idea, but does this sound familiar?

"XYZ1234, climb to FL300. FL320 not available for cruise, FL340 is available, advise."

Control XYZ1234, roger, climbing to FL300. Request FL320.

And you think R/T won't be overloaded?

Dream on!

IF2

[RustyNail]

Wow, flashback. middle eastern pilots at a guess! :ok:

[bookworm]

So what is your view on the subject, then?

I've aired my thoughts on ATC sharing the plan with pilots in:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=183798

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=173360

It sounds like you've got a good grasp of the pros and cons, PN.

Personally I think pilots should be brought more into the planning, where convenient.

Too often we are left wondering what ATC are planning for us, and would like to play a part.

Here, Timothy, take my hard hat ... :ouch:

[Timothy]

To be fair, Bookie, you got some very reasonable answers then, not much requirement for a hard hat.

I have always worked on the assumption that if I put on a 7x00 squawk I can do pretty much what I like because the guys on the ground will wave a magic wand and keep me safe.

I think that this thread is much more workaday, and possibly arising out my question (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=198266) the other day.

There are often things going on in the pilot's mind unknown to the controller and vice versa where one might be indifferent between a pair of strategies, but it makes a big difference to the other, and it is in those cases where offering a choice would be helpful.

[vector4fun]

"American eleven on nine, good morning, descend and maintain six thousand, and what approach plate did you have out already?"


"OK, expect one seven right then, fly heading two two zero for the localizer..."


Seems I'd never make it anywhere in ATC except the U.S. :E

[SirToppamHat]

Not an ATCO myself, but a Fighter Controller - please be gentle with me. ;)

In recent years, I have detected a reluctance amongst fellow bunker dwellers (recent escapee, yippeeee!) to direct changes in height for aircraft transiting because of a perceived fuel penalty.

In the example given by PN, I suspect that the same reluctance might be creeping-in? In addition, I suspect there might be an assumption that the SLF might not be happy about their G&Ts spilt!

I know this might seem flippant, but it's just a thought.

Of course the fact that we now have Eurofighter has at least given controllers the option to climb, though that presents its own problems!

Oh, and another thing, does the reduction in (cessation of?) ATCOs taking the jump-seat men that they are losing a degree of understanding of the issues for the pilots?

STH

[PMS]

generally dont give pilots a choice, as I prefer to arrange my traffic to suit the picture at the time, not wasting time on giving a pilot a choice, especially when busy.