BA's worrying RT trend!

[Secret Squirrel]

My nature is not to be pedantic but I generally like to do things properly and especially in aviation. I don't so much bend the rules as flex them for the purposes of practicality and even then only in certain areas where I feel that ambiguity will not compromise safety.

One such area I consider to be paramount is ATC clearances, and in light of the Tenerife crash in 1977 I would have thought that most people would have cottoned on to it's importance.

On many ocasions now I've been sitting at the hold at LGW whilst a BA has lined up. On receiving clearance to take off the pilot reads back "Rolling, Speedbird XXXX". Not "Clear take off, speedbird XXXX".

I'm sorry, guys but this makes you look gash.

Just an opinion.

------------------
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!

[Basil]

Agreed.
The older (boring, opinionated, ostentatious, overbearing, old fart - oops! Whatever one's favourite euphanism.) I get the more I'd say that adherance to standard procedures keeps you just a little further away from going (in a couple of seconds) from comfortable to close to disaster.

Stands proudly on moral high ground quietly disregarding former personal lapses :)

[curmudgeon]

Also agreed.

Although I don't work in aviation, my experience is that the average disaster happens because of a coincidental combination of circumstances, where the absence of any one of these would have either prevented the disaster or greatly mitigated it.

Therefore, if we can eliminate the small errors, which are of no significance by themselves, we may prevent the big disaster.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I couldn't agree more and I've already mentioned, in another thread, the increasing number of aircrew who do not read back ATC instructions - particularly the critical ones relating to final approach speeds.

We had great trouble in the past educating American pilots to readback instructions but they're now very good, as are the majority of overseas operators flying into LHR.

We don't have time to keep reminding people about readbacks (it took me three needless R/T exchanges to get a long-haul bloke to read-back speed and he got increasingly snotty each time) so I implore you to do it right first time and the likelihood of an incident is greatly reduced.

[BmPilot21]

I couldn't agree more when it comes to any clearance, or tx. once airborne. I have to confess that when I started out I was very pedantic, even on LHR ground frequency. I am now slightly more 'realistic' when talking to ground. It is SO busy that i do now use non-standard phraseology, such as if changing from one ground frequency to another i just reply "point 7, Midland XXX." I'd like to think that this is being practical - I'm not being lazy, I just think that "Contact wun too wun daycimal 7, Midland XXX" takes up too much space.

[Flanker]

Have to say I don't quite agree on this.

I agree you must read back'Clear Take Off XYZ', but if there is a delay for wake or whatever I think its not a bad idea to give a quick 'XYZ Rolling' to let the controller know you are actually moving.

It may be a bit non standard but I think its sometimes useful.

[justinzider]

"Rolling" is an RAF term I believe?

Seems pretty straight forward and unambiguous as a response to a take off clearance as long as you are in position on the correct runway.

I personally don't like the term but don't have a "problem" with it.

Relax chaps!

Justin.

[M.Mouse]

Secret Squirrel

What you describe is indeed gash however I think it might be unusual to have heard it so many times from BA crew.

Correct phraseology is taken very seriously by BA and in the 3 years I have had a command I have never had to correct anybody for sloppy RT. I can't say that I have ever been aware of much in my 15 years with the company.

Never quite understood the point of calling rolling, unless aked to, because it is surely fairly obvious!

[ethan]

Bottom Line-If you are given a clearance, you read it back correctly!! No laziness. I used to be a little bit lazy on the R/T until my captain pulled me up on it.

It only adds about .5 secs onto your transmission.

Speak correctly,

No If's And's or But's (apart from the hostie's).


Safe flying,

ethan

[HANGARPILOT]

This morning at Lgw i heard a kestrel and a jersey european use "rolling". It can easily be seen why at Lgw with the single runway ops
the landing clearances are getting later.
The atco's do a great job under the circumstances and the flight crews do their utmost to help.
keep it up, and as the engr il keep you flying.
:) "I learned about flying from that!"




[This message has been edited by HANGARPILOT (edited 23 June 2001).]

[Avman]

Many years ago I was riding jumpseat outbound AMS. As we taxied to the hold we were cleared to "line up" (without the "wait" as I recall). The captain wasn't observing the sterile cockpit practice and was chatting to me. As we lined up he called "XXXXXX, rolling" and off we went. After take-off the tower came back and asked if we were aware that we had taken off without clearance! The captain replied in the negative but pointed out that he had called "rolling". The tower controller replied to the effect that that had alerted him - and as there was in fact no traffic to affect our departure he allowed us to continue. The moral of this long winded story is that IMHO giving a "rolling" call may not be such a bad thing. I know this incident begs many other questions but neither the Captain nor the F/O doubted that they had received a take-off clearance. I did, but failed to say anything because I thought that I may have missed the clearance whilst the Captain was chatting away to me and as a guest I didn't want to interfere.

[Max Angle]

A bit unfair to single BA out for this one I think (I'm not a Nigel by the way), I've heard it from lots of operators. If you are asked to report rolling then do so but the ONLY correct response to such a critical RT message is "Cleared for Take-off xxxxx". I think we are all (pilots and ATC) a little guilty of bending the rules on the radio when things are very busy but if the transmission is safety critical then there should be no deviation from what is laid down
in the manual.

[boris]

As an old and dear departed friend used to say in reply to the R/T message " xyz rolling",
" Roger, call inverted."

By the way, M Mouse, are you the same person who, when driving a BEALINE 1-11 at BFS many moons ago and being politely asked if you would like your departure clearance now. relied "go ahead, I`m all ears".
Rude remarks then followed you all the way to MAN where I had assumed you quietly died of embarrasment.

[This message has been edited by boris (edited 23 June 2001).]

[This message has been edited by boris (edited 23 June 2001).]

[CRP5]

SS judging by the time of your post did you come back from the pub a little tipsy? Then wallow in self pity because very shortly you will have to use that very prestigious call sign SPEEDBIRD (HA HA HA), and then come up with a sensible post which sought to launch mud at all my colleagues, I only hope you understand that the incident's you seek to address here are probably very isolated!In 60 hours and 30+ sectors so far this month I can't say I have come across it!

I could fill this forum on bad use of RT, as could many others!

PS how’s the hangover?


[This message has been edited by CRP5 (edited 23 June 2001).]
(edited for bad speling HA!

[This message has been edited by CRP5 (edited 23 June 2001).]

[kippa]

SS that chip on your shoulder seems to be getting heavier. How do you like BA so far?

[caulfield]

I see nothing wrong with the "rolling" call in English-speaking countries...but would agree that more correct terminology is required when in continental Europe.I think you have to know when it is appropiate to cut corners.RT in the States is rapid-fire minimalism but is amongst the best in the world.

[chiglet]

Sorry Mr? caufield BUT calling "rolling" is IMHO a disaster just waiting to happen. At EGCC on dual r/w ops, readback of Xing landing r/w, Con/'Hon sids, Line up and Dep clearances are MADATORY! I've lost count of the number of times the Air1/Air2/ ATCO has HAD to ask for readback....from a UK crew http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

------------------
chiglet

[BEagle]

Any 'rolling' call does NOT replace a readback of 'Clear take-off'. The only use I can see for it is when you are cleared for take-off but have stated that you wish to observe wake-turbulence seperation from the aeroplane departing ahead - NOT very likely from a busy international airport - but something I often do when flying a light aircraft at an aerodrome where a VC10, TriStar or C-17 has just taken off and I've been cleared for take-off.

The original idea of the military call of 'rolling' was both to indicate to subsequent aircraft in a stream take-off to start timing their stream seperation and to stop all other transmissions on that frequency until the 'airborne - to Approach' call was made in case a 'take-off abandoned' call was blocked. Not really relevant at busy civil aerodromes nowadays - there just isn't the luxury!! Nor is it relevant when we're taking off in stream in VC10s - we can easily hear when the aircraft ahead has started rolling. As, no doubt, can everyone else within the same county!!

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 23 June 2001).]

[fireflybob]

Professional pilots "cutting corners" - surely not! How could anyone dream of such a thing?

Next thing you'll be suggesting that everyone sticks to standard R/T Phraseology, dread the thought.

Who knows, such a novel idea might prevent an accident? Now where did I put that copy of the B747 Tenerife accident......

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

[M.Mouse]

Boris

The first part of your post was very funny,
I am sorry to disappoint though regarding the second part. I didn't ever fly the 1-11.

Further to the subject in question language evolves when people want to try and sound different eg the universal usage on radio and TV in the UK of 'absolutely' to mean 'yes' but I think that R/T is the last place in the world to start experimenting with our own new ideas. Recipe for disaster. 'Rolling' is not standard. Unless asked to report rolling it is also wrong to use it in response to a T/O clearance. Where does it end?

[411A]

Using the correct phraseology leaves no doubt about one's intensions. Most important, when on the runway or about to enter same.

[Gulf227]

I agree that "rolling" shouldn't be used in place of "cleared for takeoff", there is room for confusion in this practice and should be used.

While we're talking about proper RT and the runway, where do pilots get "on the hold" in place of taxi into position and hold"? This is very irritating, when planes and pilots get close to the runway environment, proper RT needs to be used or we will see another runway disaster.

[IceViper]

The amount of guys that call 'Rolling' when the aircraft is actually stationary is more worrying. Why not call for the gear up on the runway while your at it!!

[This message has been edited by IceViper (edited 24 June 2001).]

[DeltaTango]

was'nt it the tennerrife disaster which mandated use of "clearence" only in connection with a RWY?
ie. t/o, landing, crossing etc....
So an:
"xxx, approved taxi RWY 22R"

will NEVER be missunderstood by the chap on the zebra on 22R waiting for a "
CLEARED bla bla....


Correct me if I'm wrong.

DT

[lineup]

Sounds like HOLLYWOOD, Universal Studio... :)

[ETOPS]

I have to say that on the whole R/T procedures in BA are very good. I have never had to mention anything to a colleague and hope my own practice is "up to scratch". My own personal gripe is "Coming down" in response to a new squawk being given. Heard it only this morning from VS over 10W.

[Captain Airclues]

ETOPS

What was Velvet doing to 10W?

Airclues

[autobrakemedium]

Using correct RT is not difficult and goes just another step to being professional.

Are you a professional pilot or not? If the answer is YES then why do you not use the correct RT?

Incorrect RT has been the cause of accidents and will be again. Lets reduce the risk.

[Secret Squirrel]

Right, firstly I'm not suggesting that a call of rolling should be eliminated altogether because at times it is a good thing. All I'm saying, for those of you who have trouble reading is that it should not replace the clearance read back in full of take off. OK flanker?

Secondly, CRP5, I realise that it may have been a little unfair to single out BA but I have only heard them do it and very often as it happens. I don't drink, pal, so there's your theory up the wall.

Ah, Kippa. No mate, two chips; on each shoulder as it happens, making a total of four on each. Last March as it happens. Just in time to enjoy an effective doubling of my salary AND a hefty increase in my allowances at a captain's rate. All for doing the same job I was happy doing anyway. All ahead of those poor unfortunate FO's (most of whom I probably do sympathise with, incidentally. Although by no means all, Kippa). Could this oversensitivity on your part not have something to do with the chip on your shoulder about us going in as DE captains??? I'm laughing, mate, all the way to the bank.

Anyway, as I said, just an opinion. I think you'll find that most of the ATC'ers agree with me, but hey, what do they know, right?

See ya in Jubilee, Kip.

------------------
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!

[This message has been edited by Secret Squirrel (edited 24 June 2001).]

[rhythm method]

Okay guys, what about the other problem of changing frequency and immediately transmitting on the new frequency?

I was always taught to listen out for a few seconds before transmitting in case you interjected before someone had readback an instruction from ATC. It seems to happen all too frequently, and unfortunately the worst offenders are BA crews (not picking on you cos I wish I was one, with those allowances!).

I'm sure I'm not the only person wound up by this other bad practice.

[form49]

As an ATCO at a reasonably busy airport, I like to hear "rolling" when I've cleared someone for an immediate take off, granted, this should be preceded by "cleared for take off", but it's nice to know that you boys and girls are on the ball and know that the gap is tight and we need you to react immediately. The fact that you are still stationary is irrelevant, you're just putting on the power (aren't you!!!)
Im a great believer in the use of standard phraseology, it's there for a reason. What really annoys me is crews not reading back instructions that require a mandatory readback, the main one being the QNH, the amount of RT time wasted on getting a readback of a simple instruction which requires a MANDATORY readback is becoming ridivulous, this is from UK and foreign crews alike and unfortunately it seems to be becoming more common.
Incorrect altimeter settings are responsible for a great deal of incidents, we've all seen the level bust posters and read the airprox reports, a correct readback would greatly reduce these incidents.
Perhaps pilots should spend some time in a tower or centre and see what we deal with and just how difficult our job can be made by lack of reaback!

You are all welcome to visit the airport towers and the centres, maybe you should!!


Right that's me off my soapbox

Safe and happy flying to you all

[Basil]

Ref readback of QNH - I've noticed a recent requirement to read it back when on the ground - why?

[Wheelybin]

Whilst we are on the subject,my personal bug-bear,working at a unit surrounded by high ground, is when you instruct a pilot to "Descend to altitude x,000 feet" and almost every time the response is "Descend x,000 feet".
Well only if you want to land sooner than expected!!

[Self Loading Freight]

Caulfield--

While it might be fine to assume that ATC in the UK will understand 'Rolling', won't there be a risk that other pilots on frequency won't understand non-standard terminology if English isn't their first language? I'm sure that (Unless you're at AMS, where 'Rolling' might be misconstrued as an activity that keeps your hands off the controls in the first place. Man.)

R

[Airbubba]

I guess we don't worry endlessly about R/T procedures over here in America, in fact most of us have never heard of the term. We usually assume that if we say it loud enough and long enough the other guy will get the point.

We worry more about pay and time off and have the results to show for it...

[BmPilot21]

Wheelybin, you are entirely correct in that the reply should be "descend to altitude 5000'". However, you are NEVER told to descend by a set amount (for instance, in the hold at 9000', you are never told "descend 1000'" to mean "descend to altitude 8000'" Therefore, there can never be any real confusion here? I always use the word feet, to readback that I understand its an altitude and not a FL.

The only real danger is if the clearance is 'descend two four zero zero (2400) feet' can be misinterpreted as descend to 400' (as claimed the lives of a cargo 747 a while ago.

[Rumble]

For the guy who said he believed rolling was an RAF term; It is, but means something entirely different; it means you are bashing the circuit & this time around you are landing & taking off again without stopping. I'm pretty sure thats not what the crews here mean.
I don't think there is any harm in the call as long as the correct readback has been given back & it's just tagged quickly onto the end to show you are aware of the one about to land on top of you.

[DouglasDigby]

BmPilot21, that's why you should never get (or indeed action!) a clearance 'descend two four zero zero (2400) feet' - it must ALWAYS include the words "descend to altitude" to avoid such fatal confusion. Likewise, the word "to" should never be included in clearance to a FL.

Another bug-bear - too many lazy people who don't confirm their SID details when first talking to APP/DEP e.g. "ABC123, passing 1000 feet, Bovingdon 9Z, cleared 6000 feet."

There was an AIC (140/1999, Pink 205) on the subject, dunno if it has been superceded. Think that some European ATC do things as per IACO (UK has filed an exemption?), i.e. no easy differentation between "to altitude" or "to FL" etc!

[Gonegrey]

If we are going to be picky about standard R/T, then what about all the hello's and giddays which you hear !! If you added them all up I'm sure that the time spent saying these would be quite a few minutes every hour.

Whether it is a gidday / hello or a 'rolling' one should still include the readback of the clearance given.

[Batman]

I'm afraid I would single BA as one of the worse UK airlines for RT disipline. I forget the amount of times myself or the FO I have been with have thought how gash they sound.
ie; changing frequency by giving no read back other than "By", frequencies read back as "one, nineteen, sixty five".etc, etc.
It may not sound much, but its as easy to do it the correct way as the wrong way, and sloppiness is endemic. If this is what we hear what else may be going on?

[Invalid Delete]

"XYZ123 Cleared Take Off", Correct response = "XYZ123 Cleared Take Off" or "Cleared Take Off XYZ123" - NOT "XYZ123 Rolling"
"XYZ123 Call Rolling", Correct response = "XYZ123 Rolling".
"XYZ123 Cleared Immediate Take Off", Correct response = "XYZ123 Cleared Immediate Take Off".

"XYZ123 Descend Altitude 4,000 feet", Correct response = "XYZ123 Descend Altitude 4,000 feet"
"QNH 1019", Correct ressponse = "QNH1019".

It's such a simple rule that it's stupid. ATC SAY IT....WE REPEAT IT !!!!!

What is the bloody problem with being professional and using the correct phraseology?
(Which BTW, is a MANDATORY requirement, NOT subject to our own opinions of what is best.)
It isn't that hard....come on guys lets do the job properly....

Additionally we are rquired to avoid the unnecessary words "TO" and "FOR" as these can be mis interpreted as "TWO" and "FOUR". i.e "XYZ123 Climb to six zero" - but then we all know this already, right guys ?

Incidently wheelybin, this is why you get the response you do from "almost everyone", as this is the correct response ! Except of course they should include the call sign (or was that the point that you were making?)

What really clogs up the airwaves is "Morning delivery, it's the XYZ Errrmmmm.....123, Stand 25, ATIS information xray, requesting the clearance please for Errrrmmmm....Manchester if available.....etc....".
Instead of "XYZ123, Stand 25, Information x-ray, request clearance." :rolleyes:

Anyway, there aren't many perfect pilots out there, with perfect RT skills......yup, there's only a few of us. :)

------------------
Invalid Delete Say "Late Pax : Off with their Heads !!!"
"....OK, well start with their bags then..."

[Julian]

Invalid.

Couldnt agree more - the RT regs are there in black & white, its not for pilots or ATC to go making their own up.

[This message has been edited by Julian (edited 26 June 2001).]

[fireflybob]

Just to put yet another slant on this thread here is a copy of an article printed in "The Log" in February/March 2000.

Airbubba, not trying to be prejudiced here but I think the Americans could learn a bit off us Europeans over this issue!

Readbacks in the USA

Most aircrew are probably under the impression that having receiveda clearance from a controller, our readback to them is an opportunity for the controllers to ascertain whether or not we - the aircraft crew - heard the clearance correctly, and then issue a correction if necessary.

It has been reported in the USA that a number of pilots have been hit with sanctions after allegedly failing to adhere to clearances. They appealed to the NTSB, saying that they had read back and complied with the clearance they thought they had heard, with no correction to their erroneous readback from the controller. The NTSB agreed with their reasoning, concluding that "...an air traffic controller's failure to identify and correct a pilot's erroneous readback contributes to the pilot's error and warrants a mitigation of the sanction for the pilot's regulation violation". In response to these NTSB appeal decisions, the FAA had issued an 'interpretive rule', citing the provisions of FAR 91.123 (which essentially says 'you shall comply with an ATC clearance'). The FAA's interpretation of the situation is that the NTSB's line of reasoning "diverges from the FAA's long-standing construction of FAA regulations. These regulations require pilots to comply with air traffic control clearances and instructions. Contrary to the NTSB's reasoning, pilots do not meet this regulatory imperative by offering a full and complete readback or by taking other action that would tend to expose their error and allow for it to be corrected". While the FAA acknowledges that readbacks can be beneficial to safety when radio traffic is light, the FAA asserts that they can be detrimental during periods of concentrated communications. >>Ed - I would have thought it was even more important to use readback when it's busy!!<<

The FAA concludes that: "...the simple act of giving a readback does not shift full responsibility to air traffic control and cannot insulate pilots from their primary responsibility under FAR 91.123 to listen attentively, to hear accurately, and to construe reasonably in the first instance". In cynical summary, as far as the FAA is concerned, when things are busy, then a readback is more or less a waste of breath.

In view of the FAA's interpretation of the situation, BALPA suggests to members the importance of the following advice especially, but not exclusively, when flying in USA airspace:

* Absolutely no distractions or non-operational communication be allowed during descent and approach.

* Maximise monitoring and listening capability by maximum use of the autopilot during approaches into busy US destinations.

*In conclusion, if you're not 100% sure what the clearance was, demand clarification from ATC and don't assume that ATC will correct and erroneous readback!

End of BALPA article.

I first posted this as a thread entitled "Worrying FAA ruling - readback of ATC clearances".

I do not know whether the situation in the USA has changed and it would also be interesting to know whether their incidence of "misinterpretation of clearances" is significantly different to the UK and Europe.

Finally, I am firmly of the view that we should be using the procedures as they are defined and that we are on a slippery slope when we start to deviate from same.

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


[This message has been edited by fireflybob (edited 26 June 2001).]

[cheerful chippy]

Sorry Invalid, your R/T terminology is incorrect. The correct clearance should be 'descend TO altitude 6000 ft'. If you are going to get on your high horse at least get it right!

[Winston Smith]

And another question about lessons supposedly learned from the Tenerife accident:

One of the first things we were told in class, as students, by the controllers was that the word "take-off" is to be exclusively used in the phrase "cleared for take-off" so as to minimize the risk of such a thing ever occuring again. In any other case the word "departure" had to be employed (most importantly: "ready for departure"), and we were assured that this rule is being strictly adhered to all over the globe.

While my subsequent flying experience showed me this terminology to be indeed diligently observed in Europe, I was surprised - while doing some hours in southern Africa - to hear a lot of pilots actually say "ready for take-off"!

Isn't this phraseology mandatory everywhere?

[caulfield]

To clarify,I never claimed "rolling" was a proper substitute for the "cleared for takeoff" call.If there is any delay between receiving(and the read back of)takeoff clearance and spool-up(ie.receiving that clearance whilst still taxiing),I believe the "rolling" call is a genuinely legitimate second call.It is also IMHO acceptable as a primary read-back if cleared for an immediate,as it underlines your acknowledgment of the fact that TOWER wants you to go NOW.
Of course there are short-cuts in aviation speak,and as the skies get busier,the shortcuts will become even more common.Shortcuts dont make the skies any less safer...You need only work out of ORD to know that.But this approach only works where both the pilot and controller are equally familiar with all the nuances of the English language.It is dangerous if this pre-requisite is not there.
Literal word-for-word pedantic read-backs are unnecessary and in very busy TMA's are quite frankly not a help.BA,which flies to the US more than any other UK airline,perhaps has learnt this...and maybe this is why it was a BA crew that was involved in this instance.
Re the Tenerife..that accident was caused by the KLM Captain and the KLM Captain alone.KLM tried to point the finger at the Spanish and even the Pan Am crew,but the tapes put paid to that.

[DouglasDigby]

Quote (last year) from the policy holder for RTF Phraseology for the UK.

“The UK has many differences with ICAO phraseology (actually section X of Doc 4444) and the UK has filed a general difference. We believe that the differences we have in the UK, which have been made as a result of experience over many years, have a safety benefit. However, we have no power over other states to change to our system.”

CAA (SRG) were looking at options to improve things as well.....

[fireflybob]

Caulfield, you say:-

>>Re the Tenerife..that accident was caused by the KLM Captain and the KLM Captain alone.KLM tried to point the finger at the Spanish and even the Pan Am crew,but the tapes put paid to that.<<

Whilst somewhat off the theme of this thread I feel your comments are a gross oversimplification as to the cause of the TFS accident. Most, if not all, accidents are a combination of factors and/or events.

The basic truth though is that correct RT procedures are followed this goes a long way to prevent the beginning of any "error chains"


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

[Pdub]

Noticed something interesting, that may be part of the reason for the "rolling" call, fire up your copy of Microsoft Flight sim(I'm using FS98, but assume later versions are the same). Start up one of the "adventures" "your co-pilot will handle all radio communications", following take-off clearance from ATC, the resonse from your helpful co-pilot is eg "Learjet 45LJ is rolling"

Any chance thats whats happening is the encroachment of the microsoft generation?