ATC... Bollockings for all

[Magplug]

Was at MAN yesterday 17/1800 'ish. Tower controller was dishing out fairly stern bollockings to anyone who failed to acknowledge that there were now two runways at Manchester.
When we pitched up on the Twr frequency (thinking callsign only as other major UK airports) we got a stern 'Pass your message' as if we were not expected with all the other aircraft coming down the ILS. Our 'Clear to land' illicited a bollocking for not specifying "...Land 24R" despite the fact that 24L is not/never used for landing.
On departure we stopped short of 24R at F1 (as cleared by GMC) and switched to the tower. The same Tower guy then repeated the clearance issued by GMC and then promptly issued a bollocking for not reading back 24R in a clearance we had already complying with at F1?
Listening to the freq for a few minutes it was evident that people were actually staring to ignore his rants.
Questions.....
1. The next I check in with MAN tower on the ILS are they expecting a full position report ?
2. Is there a brutal crusade in force by the R/T purists at MAN ?
3. Is there a major chip-on-shoulder thing about driving home the fact that 'Ringway Airport' now has two runways.
4. Is this one just one ****** who need to take some leave/retire?

[Bandit650]

You missed one possible explanation...

* one guy doing his best to increase safety in two parallel rwy operation (however he goes about it!)

[Few Cloudy]

He may have been having a check.

[BYMONEK]

The taxiway at LGW is NEVER used for landing but that's not stopped people from trying in the past. That is why it now has a 'kink' in it! If there are two parallel runways, the correct designation should always be used. You may know which one your supposed to land on but the controller needs to know that!

Remember, approx 80% of accidents are down to Human Factors, NOT machines.

[gazza007]

despite the fact that 24L is not/never used for landing.


During normal operations 24L is not used but has reguarly been used during the late evening & early hours when 24R has been undergoing maintenance or during a temp 24R runway closure during the day.

[Freeway]

MAN Airport has had a few close calls, since the opening of 24L.
All operators for safety and clarity of instruction are required to read back all hold short instructions and crossing instructions.
The same applies to landings and departures as not all operators and their crews are familiar with the airfield.
I am aware that to crews that are familiar with the layout of MAN, this may be perceived as being slightly pedantic or over cautious but the use of R and L suffixes makes crews think and hopefully increases airfield situational awareness, which is good for all of us. :)

[Bobbsy]

Only SLF here, but...

Regarding the Gatwick taxiway that BYMONEK mentions, I've been told several times that, in emergency, it has an offical role as a backup runway. Was this information not true, or has this been changed?

Bobbsy

[UP and Down Operator]

And to add to that, then it is not the big effort needed by crews to add in those few extra words to enhance safety and make everybody happy. It doesn't cost anything and doesn't require any physical exercise to say that bit, + it should be quit common knowledge that you state what your clearense is and you intention if needed at first contact unless advices different (eg. "contact director xxx.xxx callsign only")

- Not wanting to do it is sheer lazyness me thinks :zzz:

[In trim]

Bobbsy,

Yes you are correct. 26R/08L is the designation of the "taxiway" / reserve runway.

The "kink" in the taxiway mentioned above is valid for normal taxiway operations, but of course disappears once "runway lighting mode" is selected!

Regards

In trim

[Whitehatter]

I wonder if any of this is the fallout from the XL 737 fiasco a while ago? That report is fairly recent on the AAIB website and there may have been a couple of controllers taken to the headmaster's office over it.

Part of the findings related to instructions being read back precisely by drivers to ensure they were received properly.

Just a thought anyway.:hmm:

[Gary Lager]

Bollockings for all? Just for you, by the sound of it.

Appears as though you feel wronged, and want some public sympathy because you can't be bothered to apply good RT discipline or read the airfield chart notes.

Sorry mate, none here: take the hit, read CAP413 again and do it better next time.

One stormy night that new-found habit of yours of reading back 24L or R might save a lot of embarrassment, or even your neck.

Could be that you need some leave, and maybe get some perspective on your place within the team effort..

[Eejit]

Is it really such a hassle to add the word 'left' or 'right' to your transmission?! It doesn't take up a lot of airtime, it removes ambiguity and it keeps Mr Tower happy.

Magplug you hit the nail square on the head yourself - Manchester has two runways. That they are parallel is completely immaterial - you can only line up on one, take off on one or land on one at a time. However you can very easily cross the wrong one.

The adage 'familiarity breeds contempt' springs to mind. Do you never mention L or R when operating from airports with parallel strips? Or just at Manchester?

[Anotherflapoperator]

Just a quicky on the "kink" at LGW. You've got three parallel pieces of concrete/tarmac there. The main runway is the Southern of the three, 26L/08R, the next one, 26R/08L is the backup and is not kinked, only the end of it is fed into the waiting area for the other end. Aircraft use this often for taxiing out and in. The Northern of the three is called Juliet and is only a taxiway, marked and lit as such. that's the one that has a kink in it, at the Tango intersection where the link that goes round the back of the big hanger that Virgin use.

Hope that clears up any confusion fully for Bobbsy.

Of course there's also the bit that runs along in front of the hangers Southside too, but you don't really need to know that;)

[Tight Slot]

Could sound like a local and add the phrases "our kid" "nice one fella" "proper snide" or "its like buzzin round ere int it"

You'd be welcomed with open arms into the nest of the North West.

[MaxReheat]

Air traffikers running to each others defence! Only one ILS on the 24s at MAN and that's on the RIGHT- you cannot be established on the LEFT and will have already reported to director that you are established on the RIGHT - so save breath. MAN has had delusions of grandeur ever since it started to refer to 24R when 24L was nothing more then a strip of cleared turf. Nothing wrong with standards but let's stop stating the bleeding obvious. :ugh:

[Monarch Man]

Air traffikers running to each others defence! Only one ILS on the 24s at MAN and that's on the RIGHT- you cannot be established on the LEFT and will have already reported to director that you are established on the RIGHT - so save breath. MAN has had delusions of grandeur ever since it started to refer to 24R when 24L was nothing more then a strip of cleared turf. Nothing wrong with standards but let's stop stating the bleeding obvious. :ugh:


Beaten to the punch again!

[A4]

Initial contact with tower is callsign only unless told otherwise.......

IMO it's good practice to add the designator L or R if only to improve everyone's situational awareness. MAN may not have an ILS to 24L but places like LHR, MUC, PMI(?) do have parallel ILS and by adopting a "catch all" approach i.e. stating L or R you means don't have to remember whether or not there is a parallel ILS. Just say L or R - it really isn't a big deal!

Safety is all about teamwork. It's not nice to see pilots and ATC bickering over one letter! So let's all kiss and make up and keep it SAFE.

A4 :ok:

[CAP509castaway]

Hey guys calm down..... even Barton International has 27L and 27R !:} :} :}

[UP and Down Operator]

MaxReheat:

"Air traffikers running to each others defence! Nothing wrong with standards but let's stop stating the bleeding obvious. :ugh:"

Say that to all those relatives to dead pax through the years. Most disarsters happen due to human error, and the way to try and avoid this, is NOT to have your attitude, but to follow the procedures set out. They are there to enhance safety and not to just anoy everyone as you seems to think.

If you are too lazy to add "Right" or "Left", and don't understand why basic ATC procedures and R/T procedures is set out, then leave the business please, and save the rest of us for 1 unwanted moron. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Hope I will never fly with you, either as pax or crew :yuk:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Up and Down Operator... Among the wisest words expressed so far on this thread and I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence. There can never ever be an argument against enhancing safety.

[Monarch Man]

Say that to all those relatives to dead pax through the years. Most disarsters happen due to human error, and the way to try and avoid this, is NOT to have your attitude, but to follow the procedures set out. They are there to enhance safety and not to just anoy everyone as you seems to think.

If you are too lazy to add "Right" or "Left", and don't understand why basic ATC procedures and R/T procedures is set out, then leave the business please, and save the rest of us for 1 unwanted moron. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Hope I will never fly with you, either as pax or crew :yuk:

Get over yourself, and while you are at it, learn to construct a sentence with the correct spelling.

Max is merely stating the bloody obvious, this HAS nothing to do with laziness, or a slack procedures. Quite simply you CANNOT be established for an ILS on 24L, hence procedurally it is an IMPOSSIBILITY:hmm:

[hotmetal]

Interesting to see this thread has started. I got a tetchy reply for checking in with callsign only recently at Manchester. I was told it is traditional/customary to check in with something like a dme distance and runway. It may be traditional but not in accordance with CAP413.

[SEAN911]

Using -R, -L suffix is no guarantee.
Years ago, flying into a very busy gen. av. airport in S. Florida, with a lot of static and congestion on frequency, I believe I was cleared for a vis. app.
to -R runway. I read back "-R runway" at least 5 times, assuming controller would correct me if I'd got it wrong. He was overloaded and it just didn't register. Finally he said: "Where are you; I just don't see you?"
"I'm on short final, -R runway, clear of traffic."
"-R runway? You're supposed to be on -L runway!"
" I read back -R runway at least 5 times."
"Oh well. Cleared to land."

Lesson learned: Eternal vigilance. No assumptions.

[Avman]

Dear oh dear, so much bickering between two sets of new generation professionals (cockpit & ATC). Is this a sign of the times post 911? I remember the days when ATC staff were welcomed to the FD (not just on fam flights but on ANY flight), which offered ample opportunity to discuss professional issues. More often than not we'd get together in the pub afterwards too. Great social occasions, but very educational (for both sides)too. Gone are the days of great airline/atc co-operation as we experienced with the likes of Dan-Air, Air Europe and British Caledonian to name just a few. Some of the comments and attitudes above sadden me. :(

[NudgingSteel]

Although there's only one ILS on the 24 end, don't forget the runways are only laterally displaced by 390 metres, and so it wouldn't take a huge deviation to the left to be looking straight down 24L. Runway misidentifications have happened all round the world many times over, and will continue to happen no doubt. Manchester seems to be taking a lead in pro-active work to reduce runway incursions, that means trying to catch more before they happen. If that means some pedantic sounding repetition of hold short instructions but saves a single incursion then it'll have proved itself.

That said, there shouldn't be any need for any more than callsign to tower on first contact; the tower controller has flight progress strips and a radar display so they should be expecting your call. I absolutely hate to hear anybody having a 'pop' on the r/t at somebody else, it's unprofessional and there's no need to antagonise crews and cause them a distraction at any phase of flight.

[Gary Lager]

ATC are welcome in my FD and I have been made very welcome many times at ATCCs in the UK and in Europe. Just because a few can't see the wood for the trees is not necessarily cause for despair!

[Longchop]

I agree Avman.....we should all work together....

I dont bollock ATC for giving me duff gen and likewise....

[MaxReheat]

Thank you, Monarch Man - I was referring specifically to MAN.
Up and Down Operator - before you start questionning contributors' experience, qualifications and professionalism - be very careful. I probably have more time on both sides of the fence than you have probably been eating hot dinners - and I've been around long enough to recognise the difference between matters vital to flight safety and good practise and bollocks. Having been vectored onto the 24R ILS, having flown down the 24R ILS, having now been cleared by the meticulous MAN tower controller to land on 24R, I am going to land on the runway ahead of me - yes 24 RIGHT - the repetition of which is nugatory. You're apparent unthinking adherence to 'procedure' is as much a danger as blatent disregard of procedure.
Confirming you are going to land on the runway a mile ahead of you is stating the bleedin obvious!

[throw a dyce]

Had a few beers thanks to Dan Air in the past.:D
Anyway I think back to Singapore Airlines at Taiwan who took off on the wrong runway (R instead of L)and a lot of people died.There is a lot out about runway incursions from CAA/SRG and one of the guidelines is that parallel runways should always be given their full designator.I think the controller is correct on insisting that readbacks be correct.Isn't it easier to just readback what the controller is saying than try to take short cuts.There is a fine line that sounds like being narky,but the controller is only using correct phraseology.

[ATC Watcher]

Maxreheat ( and to a lesser extend Magplug ) you both show very little understanding of Human factor issues. If you think striclty applying procedures is bullying then , indeed you are perhaps in the wrong job, no matter how much experience you have, or you claim to have. But perhaps also because of that experience, you think you have seen it all and can do without some of the fences.
Because the fences are there to protect you, not to bother you.

Be kind to the other side, even if he states the obvious. Basic CRM no ?

I remember reading the Flying tigers 747 crash in KL years ago,that if the controller had used FL 280 instead of 280, he might have saved lives that day.

And the controller that never ommitted the " FL" in his instructions before that accident can throw the first stone.

Chug a lug to all , on both side of the R/T fence.

[Lucifer]

Not much to argue about here - a bollocking on frequency is unprofessional.

Sounds like the chap in question needs a holiday. If it is crucial information, his colleague can specify information required on handover, or he can repeat his instruction where he is unclear that the crew has understood/read back sufficient information.

Tower: "xxx hold short 24R"

xxx "hold short"

Tower: "I repeat, xxx hold short 24R"

xxx "hold short 24R"

Simple - no bollocking needed, delivered in a relax and professional manner, and gets the clarification required.

[Manchester ATC]

Bad hair day.

[Elixir]

24L doesn't have an ILS but don't both runways have VOR?? A couple of times last summer I remember the ILS being down and the VOR/DME procedure in use.....fair enough those of us who fly into MAN regularly would know to use 24R but I'd much rather read back the 'R' than make a very embarassing mistake of heading for the wrong runway!!! :O

I can't believe reading the R or L back is an issue - surely this is the standard RT phraseology drilled into us right at the start of our training! :8

[Kit d'Rection KG]

Remember, approx 80% of accidents are down to Human Factors, NOT machines.

It's a sad day when fellow 'professionals' start trotting out this sort of rubbish. (Probably 'learnt' it on a CRM course...)

:( :( :( :( :( :( :(

[Flapping_Madly]

Excuse me. Do you mind if I butt in for a second?
I'm just SLF. So far I've had the same number of landings as take-offs. So I'm pleased. If a tiny amount of effort to do a "proper" readback helps to keep my stats looking good I'll be very grateful to you all. Thanks.

[chiglet]

Funny thread, this....I was the Air Assistant at MAN yesterday, between 1645 and 1800, and the Air ONE ATCO [24R] is a very laid back chap, and the Air TWO ATCO [24L] is almost as laid back. I certainly didn't hear any "B0llockings" on freq, a confirm, or two, but that was it.
BTW, it is SOP for you [the Pilot] to be given landing/departure clearance on a "Specific" Runway, by the ATCO, eg "Cleared to land 24R". I know that most replies have concentrated on 24, but don't forget 06L/R Has an ILS for BOTH Runways, so specifying the landing r/w on a 06 approach is less pedantic?
watp,iktch

[dash6]

Don't flap madly! If you are at all nervous stay away from prune It's for entertainment only!

[A4]

We're all talking about 24 here. 06 has ILS on both ends and both are used for landing depending on the time of day. Do the protagonists who feel the use of L or R in readbacks as "optional" not see the glaring danger here?

Many moons ago I approached MAN expecting 06 L (as on ATIS), but the runway switched to 06R. It was only when cleared to establish on 06R that the change became apparent. ATIS had not been listened to in descent (SOP)and the runway change was not broadcast.

Potentially embarrassing at the least. It was CAVOK which actually had the potential to make things worse if I'd elected to go visual for just "06" ...... and landed on the wrong runway.

Some disturbing and entrenched attitudes have been shown in this thread. I think some people need to take a step back and think. What kind of example are you setting to the younger guys (and gals)?

Remember your read backs help to develop everybody elses "mental model" as to who is where and doing what. Or perhaps some think that's just CRM c**p as well :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Keep it professional and keep it safe.

A4

Chiglet - you posted as I was typing ...... :)

[Ian Brooks]

Quite often during the day there are parallel approaches to 24L by light aircraft as well as airliners on 24R and I`m sure that it would make the controllers feel a lot happier to have it confirmed which runway is being used by each aicraft

Ian

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

My opinion (worth sod all) is this:

Parallel runway airports ALWAYS say Left or Right on every transmission every time.

UK ATC bollock you then you either deserved it - or - he's having a bad day and CRM strongly suggests you take it because next week you'll be having a bad day and make the same mistake AND you'll regret it on the drive home.

Final point, ATCOs and Pilots always enjoy each others company at the bar - fourth law of flying.

Cheers

WWW

[parabellum]

Lucifer I think you are wrong, you are advocating cluttering up the frequency with unnecessary transmissions, might work at MAN but just try not reading back the precise R/W designator at somewhere like ORD or LAX, try getting a word in edge ways for that matter.
If the read back is correct in the first place then there is no need for clarification and to leave out the L, R or C, (Jeddah etc.) is very unprofessional and incorrect R/T.

[Monarch Man]

Just for clarification, my comments relate specifically to operating into MAN and specifically the use of Rwy 24R.
"localiser established Rwy 24" leaves no room for ambiguity, confusion, human factors bumf, or non sensical alleged R/T bollockings for putting a "left" or "right" after the rwy number.
Simply, again:hmm: , there is only an ILS on rwy 24R at MAN.

All this navel gazing about left or right misses the point relating to this specific airport, and specific runway:=

[Gonzo]

Blimey! This is more depressing than any soap opera! :{

From UK Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 CAP493:
Appendix E
5.6.1 Pilots are required to read back in full messages containing any of the following items:
........Runway-in-use......
5.6.2 Controllers are to prompt a pilot if a read back is not immediately forthcoming.
5.6.3 Errors in a read back must be corrected by the controller until the pilot gives an accurate read back.

From CAP413 UK R/T Manual:
Chapter 4
1.7.8 When several runways are in use.........the runway number will be stated.

Monarch Man,

Altering standard phraseology to suit 'specific airports and specific runways' is dangerous. I can't understand how anyone could advocate it.

[Mr A Tis]

Just read 3 pages of utter tosh.
If you can't be arsed to say 24L or 24R then get a paper round.

[Monarch Man]

From CAP413 UK R/T Manual:
Chapter 4
1.7.8 When several runways are in use.........the runway number will be stated.

Monarch Man,

Altering standard phraseology to suit 'specific airports and specific runways is dangerous'. I can't understand how anyone could advocate it.

Sorry Gonzo, standard phraseology and the "real" world are two entirely different things, as you well know.
Quoting chapter and verse out of CAP 413 smacks of a barrack room lawyer mentality.
standard phraseology is often trumpeted as the solution to everything from level busts, to runway incursion, in point of fact reading back and understanding a clearance are the salient points here and not, an issue of saying left or right.

If you can't be arsed to say 24L or 24R then get a paper round.

Damn my years of incident free and clearly understood aviating have mounted to nothing:hmm:

[Gonzo]

reading back and understanding a clearance are the salient points hereCorrect. Therefore reading back '24R' is required, if the ATCO has used '24R' in his clearance.

What an interesting phrase 'barrack room lawyer' is. Funnily enough, I'm quite interested in the etymology of words and phrases, so I looked this one up. It seems there are a few different meanings:
- A person who, although unqualified, insists on giving advice.
- A person that can get out of trouble by a thorough knowledge of the rules.
- A somewhat insubordinate nuisance, who usually has right on his side.

Perhaps you could clarify which particular meaning you were using in your post?

Knowing procedures and rules is an integral part of my job. But then you knew that. I'd imagine that it's an important part of your job too.

[ZeBedie]

MAN runway layout is an accident waiting to happen. It's my impression that ATC are under very strict instructions to maintain perfect R/T.

They've always been a bit too fond of handing out bollockings though. Perhaps a few MOR's would change that culture.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Be the Big Man and just add the 14 millisecond phrase "right/left".

Then everyone is happy, non-stressed, concenrating on the job and WHOOPS saves the day by stopping doing something they aren't supposed to.

CRM invloves the man on the headset, the ATC and even the CAA. As you well know.

Cheers

WWW

[Monarch Man]

Correct. Therefore reading back '24R' is required, if the ATCO has used '24R' in his clearance.

Couldn't agree more, my point however is that blind adherence to standard phraseology is no garantee nor protection from an error. I find it amazing that people continue to buy into this process of following rules without ever really thinking and considering what they are doing.
We all rely on the redundancy of the systems, the safeguards that will hopefully stop all the holes a given day lining up, part of that is taking a practical approach to a situation, not blind obedience that does nothing to improve SA for a specific set of circumstances.

As for my Barrack room lawyer comment;

Yes it is true definitions vary, but my use of the comment is in the context of saying that you can quote the rules all you like however "there is the way it should be, and the way it is"

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Monarch man. You are denigrating people for the use of standard phraseology.

An unusual position.

Can you perhaps defend it further?

WWW

[Monarch Man]

WWW, no I'm not, and please don't make assumptions on my behalf:=

I am saying that in order to understand why we do, what we do, why certain errors, omissions, or incidents occur, we first have to understand the methodology and nature of our actions.
Standard phraseology has a place in this, but taken to the en-th degree does "fife" or "five" contribute to an improvement in flight safety?
The recent introduction of an additional "degrees" comment requirement onto radar heading read backs is another classic case of an additional layer of phraseology that serves no real purpose, after all, radar heading instructions are proceeded by the qualifier "fly heading xxx" or "turn left/right onto heading xxx" where does adding "degrees" improve flight safety or SA? All it does is add another layer that gets lost in the fog of 2 or 3 instructions:=
My argument relates to a practical standpoint, not as you may believe, a disagreement to the basic principles.

24L/R is neither here nor there, how can you be established on a non-existent ILS?

[electricjetjock]

Monarch Man

I suggest you go back to the original post and re-read it.

It appears the poster was corrected for not reading back "cleared to LAND 24R" or "cleared for take off 24R", does not mention anywhere calling established on the localiser!!!!!

There is no excuse for lazyness and some people need to get more.:rolleyes:

[ATCO1962]

Thread drift, I know, but...... until you establish a proper two-way conversation, use your full call sign every time.

Sigh!

[BYMONEK]

Monarch Man

Your attitude shown towards basic R/T 'STANDARD' on this topic is quite disturbing. What's even more disturbing is your self belief that because of your untarnished safety record, you're vindicated in you decision to alter the rules to fit the 'real World'. The only 'World' that it appears to be in is your very own! You reveal a level of complacency and arrogance which has no place on the flight deck. Especially not a creditable operater like Monarch.

Many have quoted enough examples on here already in which fatal accidents have been caused by confusion and poor R/T discipline. This has nothing to do with Lawyers but everything to do with the fallibility and limitations as human beings. It's because OF the real world that we have these rules my friend! Accidents will always happen and that is unfortunate. But to have an accident and learn nothing from it is unforgiveable. As for complacency;


" When anyone asks me how I can best describe my experience of nearly 40 years at sea, I merely say - uneventful. Of course there have been winter gales and storms and fog and the like, but in all my experience I have never been involved in an accident of any sort worth speaking about. I have seen but one vessel in distress in all my years at sea. I never saw a wreck, nor have I been wrecked, nor was I in any predicament that threatened to end in disaster of any sort!"



























Capt E.J.Smith


Captain of the SS Titanic - during an interview in 1907. Captain Smith, along with 1500 innocent people remain with the ship today.

[Carbide Finger]

Monarch Man,
You wouldn't be the Monarch pilot that refuses to use his full callsign as well, would you? I had to put up with this all the way from MONTY to LAMAT and found it very disconcerting in a very busy session.

Standard RT is there for a reason. When I'm busy, I go back to that standard RT, no embellishments or shortcuts. I also slow down transmissions to aid thinking time etc. Having someone else cutting corners means that I really have to focus on their readback more than most.

Whilst I can see the arguement of you point, I would ask you, as a professional, to stick to the standard RT. It may seem to you to be OK to cut corners at MAN, but if you continue to amend your RT it could get you into trouble elsewhere.

Regards

CF

[Three Yellows]

Thank you Gonzo, I always enjoy your posts!

[A4]

Monarch Man. I am truly concerned by your attitude. You may not realise it but your posts come across as arrogant and stubborn. If you cannot see why adding "degrees" to a heading instruction ending in a zero i.e. 240 degrees , enhances flight safety then perhaps it's time you hung up your headset.

You insist you are right, you seem to think CRM is worthless. You come across as totally complacent with your "I've been all right for years" attitude. Your comment about "you cannot be established on 24L because it doesn't have an ILS" whilst technically correct is totally crass.

Deep down you know you're wrong - but just won't admit it. Loss of face.

UK airspace is getting busier and busier and it is beholden upon everyone to operate in a totally professional manner.

Out.

A4

[Gonzo]

Monarch Man,

part of that is taking a practical approach to a situation, not blind obedience that does nothing to improve SA for a specific set of circumstances.Please tell me how using the runway designator does not add to SA, or how not using the designator does add to SA.

Are you advocation only using standard phraseology when it clearly increases SA?

Standard phraseology has a place in this, but taken to the en-th degree does "fife" or "five" contribute to an improvement in flight safety?That's difficult to quantify. However, I use 'fife' and that's never been misunderstood or mistaken for another numeral. Interestingly, that's the same argument that you're using for utilising non-standard R/T. Ironic really, isn't it?

The recent introduction of an additional "degrees" comment requirement onto radar heading read backs is another classic case of an additional layer of phraseology that serves no real purpose, after all, radar heading instructions are proceeded by the qualifier "fly heading xxx" or "turn left/right onto heading xxx" where does adding "degrees" improve flight safety or SA? All it does is add another layer that gets lost in the fog of 2 or 3 instructions:=
My argument relates to a practical standpoint, not as you may believe, a disagreement to the basic principles.Interesting. So all those instances of aircraft being instructed to fly heading xxx and actually climbing/descending to xxx instead were just coincidence?

[Magplug]

When anyone asks me how I can best describe my experience of nearly 40 years at sea, I merely say - uneventful.
I wish I could say the same... but that probably has much to to with the heaps that I fly.

My point was not intended to bring the r/t purists out of the woodwork but to make a valid point. Not one of us seems to have an issue with the recent r/t directives on requiring runway entry point readback when given lineup clearance. It started at MAN with the 'second readback' of the departure clearance just as you were lining up and finishing the pre-TO checks. I know one or two colleagues who MOR'ed that and the thankfully the daft procedure seems to have stopped. Then there was the dictat that the ATIS should increment an issue every time a single parameter changed. You copied ALPHA in descent only to hear FOXTROT current from the approach controller... who of course told you to copy the latest!

Controllers at LHR & LGW are probably the best in the world however they witness some quite appalling r/t from visiting a/c. They make corrections where required and where the possibility of misunderstanding might arise from an ambiguous readback they ask for a repeat... and I believe that level of intervention is spot-on. If they believed that there were persistent offenders I am sure they would not hesitate in passing the tapes to the CAA.

The issue at MAN is quite different they are tip-top at doing their own thing regardless of what happens in the rest of the world. OK so they designed a crap runway layout... I think we are all agreed on that, but that is by-the-by. The r/t cleansing crusade I witnessed the other day was well beyond what is acceptable because it was audibly winding pilots up and that is not good in a busy environment. The guy was taking so long bollocking people that he was then having to rush regular operating clearances.

There is no difference between MAN and any other medium sized airfield.... same difficulties & same dangers.... yet Manchester ATC seem content to live in a bubble fighting their particular crusades and pretend that they are the only airfield in the world.

[Monarch Man]

Ahhh I do enjoy how precious you all become at times:8


It is rather refreshing, and yet rather pathetic, there must have been a sale at Argos this week for High Horses :D

[Sallyann1234]

Busy Bee,
Well said and if that were me I would not be happy at the thought of the Monarch jet perhaps on my tail.

MM,
1. However well you know MAN, you are only a visitor there. The local ATCO's will always know better than you what is required. It is good manners that when visiting somewhere you observe the customs of the house/country. When in Rome...
2. Your last post suggests you need an anger management course. Do you respond in the same way to opposing views in the cockpit?
3. When I hear "I'm too experienced to follow the rules" I worry a lot.

Sal

[Flying Torquewrench]

Monarch Man,

I do know this argument is about MAN 24L/R. But according your own words you feel its wasted airtime to mention established 24R. Because, again according to your own words, you can't be established on 24L as it has no ILS.

With that logic in mind can you explain to me which R/T procedure you use in LGW? Technically you can't be established on 26R as it has no ILS. But the last time i listened everybody used 'established 26L'. Even our own company aircraft.

If you feel its required in LGW, why do you think its not required in MAN?

[phillipas]

SLF here.

"localiser establisherd rwy 24", to my mind, leaves lots of room for misunderstanding - simply because MAN doesn't have a runway 24!

It has a runway 24L. It has a runway 24R. It doesn't have a runway 24.

Please try to use the correct phrasing, it seems to me that it would help you avoid landing your aircraft on mine as I'm waiting to take-off.

[Farty Flaps]

Dear oh dear,
what a lot of bolox.
Time to get that Job palying a piano in a whorehouse...

Monarch man. if there is no need to make the small effort of repeating the full designator then there is also no need to put the definate article in front of your Moanarch callsign ,but you lot do. We just smile and think what
t0ssers. Or the monarch chap who asked for taxi while still tugged up. On being challenged by ourselves and atc the f/o was dashed rude. As a result of their collective experience and skill they proceeded to rush taxi to 24l forgeting the flaps. (757) They remembered them half way thru the line up, just as we were about to warn them. That wasnt you monarch man was it? Too experinced for regular afterstart /pre taxi checks as well as readbacks?Now monarch man do you represent this attitude in monarch or are you just letting your colleagues down? If it was you Id be happy to recieve a PM and we can forwrd the incident and your attitude to your chief pilot.

Also it mOnArch with short vowels, not moanaaarch.

There is however one grumpy sod at man who last year pulled up a cadet on his first sector of rt. I called him on the phone and gave him short shrift. End of.

Certainly not pages of sanctimonious crap

[TURIN]

This must be a wind up by MM.

Or, considering his unblemished career, he is like Jasper Carrot's mother in law.

"Been driving for 30 years and never had an accident, but she's SEEN hundreds!!":D

[Monarch Man]

:D :D :D ;)

Soo many people on here get their knickers in a twist over a few "carefully" chosen phrases and word combinations.

[octavian]

Sorry for the late call chaps, only just come on frequency. You're not expecting me, so if I tell you who I am, where I am and what I am doing, then that must enhance your situational awareness, whether Pilot or ATCO, even if the latter is expecting me. So an initial call including c/s, ILS established, r/w including L,R,(C or whatever) and range sets the scene for everyone on the frequency. Anything that enhances situational awareness of those who may be affected has to be a safety plus, always assuming that they're listening. At Manchester, under normal circumstances, the only initial call using callsign onlyon a tower or approach frequency is on transfer from one of the two approach control positions to the final director, and that is only if specified. Yes, it can get busy with high r/t loadings, yes we can all get grumpy, yes we can have approaches to both runways simultaneously, yes we have had crews set up for the wrong runway. It's dead easy to get it wrong, and I like talks in the boss's office without biscuits as little as the next man or woman. It's also dead easy to do it right. Have read through some of the previous posts and can't really believe that we're all on the same side.

[throw a dyce]

I'll probably get shot down.Again!
Anyway in Hong Kong when CLK opened on single runway it was called 25L/07R.The North runway was still under construction,but it had 25R/07L and big X painted on it.We used full runway designators because it was a new airport, strange for everyone and that was what the runway was called.Despite having red stop bars, and a closed runway it didn't stop Korean getting lost and taxiing on 25R:D .Golden Plonker Towbar Award.There was no ILS radiating on 25R/07L but a hell of a lot of dumper trucks.Nasty if you hit them.
Once the North Runway was opened we were allowed to do sideslips on to the other runway,if there was a problem.I don't know Manc but guess that option might be available.Then you'd have to get the L or R crystal clear.
(Heads):hmm:

[8028410q]

This is getting ridiculous!
Before becoming an F/O based at MAN, I was a bobby who worked in a police communications and control room, sending people to burglarys, domestics, fights etc.
The golden rule of my time working inside was 'never p1$$ off your communicator, or the next ball of s&^t will be heading your way'. The maxim is true now as it ever has been. The ATCO's are there to do their job, and we are there to do ours. IMHO, if you annoy an ATCO, be prepared to spend some time in the hold or get sent the long way round! The ATCO is there to ensure safety, and whatever we, as pilots, can do to ensure they have the complete picture in terms of situational awareness and clarity, then I'll do, without question or sarcastic remarks.
We all do our different jobs, let's just do them to the best of ability, WITHOUT WINDING EACH OTHER UP!

[octavian]

In the ideal world there will be a calmness and equilbrium which all parties involved in the operation of the aircraft will endeavour to maintain at all times and under all circumstances and so preserve the safety much loved by everyone. Unfortunately this is the real world and it won't always be so calm or safe. Pilots and ATCOs effectively interact at many stages of the flight, however, this is only directly apparent in RT transmissions and interpretation of each others behaviours. No-one gets everything right all the time, and CRM, and TRM for ATCOs, includes ways of identifying and correcting inappropriate actions and behaviours in, ideally, a non-confontational way, however, one person's gentle reminder may be seen by the other as waggling a red rag in their face. Most of these techniques are considered within the context of the immediate workplace - the fightdeck, the tower or wherever. The fact that Pilots and ATCOs interact with each other from their own workplaces means that effectively they are a part of each others resources. Chastising or whatever on the RT is an emotive subject as we have seen. Perhaps a comment like "can we talk about this later" and the provision of a phone number would take the heat out of it. Alternatively I suppose "Pistols at dawn on PPRUNE?" As for punishment by extra holding or long routings? Not really. My life is difficult enough as it is. I just want the awkward squad off my frequency ASAP

[Bedder believeit]

Some interesting observations here. One could say that standard phrases should be the same the (aviating) World around. Things like "Clear to land RWY 25R" etc should be pretty straight forward. However different places concoct their own idiosyncracy's because of local issues. Here in Hong Kong we say "Descend to 6000 FEET" which some people that never come here might find strange, but then in the next breath we may be clearing an aircraft to climb to "Flight Level 6900 METRES ". I feel a bit sorry for the thread starter and some of his/her supporters, as some Controllers can be a bit high handed at times. It would be interesting to see a PPLune (sic) thread in Mandarin that some of the Chinese pilots that fly into here would subscribe to, with some of the "bollockings" that they have to put up with from some of my colleagues.

[Yaw String]

MM......Muffin the Mule?
I remember the days when that didn't carry a 10 year suspended sentence!
Now if you really want to bring up a potential safety issue what about the seemingly universal tendency for both controllers and us (not US)pilots to omitt the words flight level and add the word "to" or was it 2!:hmm: :hmm: :hmm:
MM, very dry. :ok:

[LH2]

if you annoy an ATCO, be prepared to spend some time in the hold or get sent the long way round!

Bet all the ATCOs in MAN are eagerly waiting for the next Monarch flight that forgets about the Left/Right bit :}

[rampman]

there are some very good ATC controllers at man and some that have a bit of a short fuse. there is one ATCO that is cool as a cucumber no mater what even if it is very busy and some fog thrown in for the fun of it he remains so cool his voice never changes.

yet there is one lady ATCO who can lose the plot at time's she is known to some of us as the ice maiden god she can rip a strip of you at the best of times even when its quiet and sunny

you all do a great job and i tip my hat to you all

rampman:ok:

[MancRed]

You mean Katie chaos she's great fun :}

[Spiney Norman]

I was doing approach on the afternoon in question and didn't bo**ock anyone... Should I turn myself in for re-education? :p

[Homepage]

OK. I have the solution. Can MAPLC please arrange the installation of an ILS on the Southern runway at Manch. Then Monarch Mate will be happy to oblige calling the Northern runway 24R at all times.
Problem Solved. :D

[Manchester ATC]

http://www.faa.gov/runwaysafety/images/fan2.jpg

Say's it all.

[Homepage]

On a more serious note, the useage of phraseology Left and Right didn't and won't stop me and my colleague accidentally setting up the aircraft for 06L at Manchester while 06R was/is in use. (Following a very nice brief - all be it from "the wrong plate"! Doh.) In the event, we didn't get a LOC signal from 06L - but what if...?

Although we figured it out on base leg, I never mind being VERY clear about which runway we're using because we all need extra safety nets from time to time(Especially after four consecutive 5a.m. starts!!).

Not meaning to annoy any Man controllers, nor do I condone slack RT used by many at our daily destinations, but I hope this might help you understand the human side...

When we operate in the rest of the world where a whole variety of RT practices achieves a routine result, then returning to textbook RT practices at Manchester after 10 hours away from it can be a little trying. Especially when we pilots are tired and emotional.

So ATC'ers, this doesn't excuse the poor RT, but might help shed some light on what may be in the minds of some of those on the other end of your radio.
I can say for myself that I often appreciate a gentle contoller request for a readback to clarify something I may have been ambiguous about.
BUT with just a little too much conviction from the controller it can set off a feeling of mild anger that I would like to think I'd never feel - but it sometimes happens me too. Now there's human factors for ya!! But to this day, I haven't let it spill out to the airwaves. What's said to my colleague on the flight deck :mad: might be different, hee hee :)

Oh well, just a bit more fuel on the fire from me.

[TURIN]

Well, your all wrong!!! (Well you will be).

"As of 7th July 2007, Manchester Airport's runway assignments will be changed in relation to the Magnetic Compass bearings. The current headings for the runways are 054° and 234° with assignments 06L/24R and 06R/24L respectively (11/1/07). The new runway changes will mean the new assignments will be 05L/23R and 05R/23L respectively. ":confused:

[octavian]

Nice words Homepage, and thank you for emphasising the human side of being on the receiving end. I would like to think that I have a sympathetic ear and gentle reply when you are feeling jaded, which I hope I can sense by the tone in the voice. What you say to your colleague on the flightdeck may be just as vehement as my outburst in the tower or ops room. As we watch the swan gliding gently past on the river it is as well we can't see what's going on below the waterline!

[rampman]

i was not saying any names jarvis769169 as not to get a extra helping of torn strips off me :O but she dose make for good fun when you are not on the receving end ;)

rampman:ok:

[terrain safe]

This whole thread is very interesting. Can I ask a question? How often do pilots get their RT checked? (Sorry that was 2 questions!).

I get mine checked every 3 months by an LCE with the big check annually. Perhaps pilots should get their RT checked regularly as sometimes it is appalling and trying to get a reasonable readback sometimes is impossible. Otherwise the rest of you, except Monarch Man, are great. Thank You.

[G-FLYB]

See my Q on ATC forum re hdg and Fl and degrees - interesting responses.

The answer to your question - every 6 months on LPC, every year on OPC, line check and every time with a trg pilot

[Slaphead]

For Monarch Man

I was interested in your comments about 'The recent introduction of an additional "degrees" comment requirement onto radar heading read backs is another classic case of an additional layer of phraseology that serves no real purpose, after all, radar heading instructions are proceeded by the qualifier "fly heading xxx" or "turn left/right onto heading xxx" where does adding "degrees" improve flight safety or SA?'

Pilots confusing a level and heading instruction i.e climbing or descending to the heading rather than the cleared level used to account for 11% of level busts in the UK. Following the introduction of the adding the word degrees to headings ending in 0 the same error now accounts for less than 1%

Perhaps I'm missing something but it looks to me like the use of this additional phraseology has served a purpose

[G-FLYB]

Slaphead - please copy post this on the ATC thread re hdgs & degrees etc
Thanks

[Monarch Man]

Perhaps I'm missing something but it looks to me like the use of this additional phraseology has served a purpose

ahhhh if only things were that simple.

Could it also be a product of the mindset of both pilots and ATCO's alike that this issue has been highlighted?
Could it be a product of the processes at work?
Is it a product of the increased awareness from CP's down to the average line pilot, along with numerous NAT's publications, safety notices, and company aircrew memoranda that has served to improve the appreciation of the nature of the level bust issue.

Pilots confusing a level and heading instruction i.e climbing or descending to the heading rather than the cleared level used to account for 11% of level busts in the UK.

All this shows is the limitation of the system currently in place, it also highlights why phraseology has its limitations..because the word "degrees" is open to misunderstanding.

Then again what would I know, I'm clearly a majority of one in this thread.

[UP and Down Operator]

One thing is for sure. Next time there is a Monarch plane nearby, either on the ground or in the air, I will get my aircraft away in a hurry. No-one will know anything about what he is doing or where he is going :ugh:

There is a total lunatic in my current company who doesn't know anything about procedures, airlaw, atc, or r/t. Funny enough, he is ex Monarch as well..... do they train you guys to be dangerous or do you take special classes?? :sad: :sad: :sad:

And Monarch Man:
Regard your comment about me not being able to compose a sentence right, then let me inform you that I am not native English... I am one of the "imports" but would not expect you to be flexible enough to accept my lessor skills in your language. Types like you never are :hmm:

[spekesoftly]

Could it also be a product of the mindset ......... etcI agree that it is probably a combination of all those things - a general hightened awareness. But whether we agree or not with any particular R/T procedure, may I please ask that we keep our disagreements away from the airwaves.

[Monarch Man]

There is a total lunatic in my current company who doesn't know anything about procedures, airlaw, atc, or r/t. Funny enough, he is ex Monarch as well..... do they train you guys to be dangerous or do you take special classes?? :sad: :sad: :sad:

Perhaps it is why he left Monarch?

With respect of the "import" tag you have labeled yourself with, I am glad you feel able to share. You are right however, types such as myself are never satisfied, if we were, it would show an arrogance and disrespect for the dynamic and challenging environment we all choose to work in.

Is it beyond the bounds of balance Up and Down for you to share with us the company that you work for? It is abundantly clear you are happy to cast baseless aspersions in the direction of my employer, without offering any substance to your opinions. I wonder if I may have the opportunity to respond in a similar baseless fashion?

Speke, for the record, I think you ATCO boys/girls do a magnificent job, inspite the many ill-conceived and poorly implemented procedures we all try to abide by.

[Adola69]

:p This is Fanatstic ! Both Magplug and Monarch Man have been given RED cards by the many referees on this site, and QUITE RIGHTLY SO, over their non-adherance to plain speaking Standard R/T. One or two Man controllers are on Yellows, but the one of those (Female) has retired, so breath easy chaps and chapessess ( Provided that's the correct one )???
So I propose that we introduce for one day, as a partial experiment to see if Plug & MM were right in their assumption that standard R/T is a P*ss take, A "Shakespere delivery Day", or a "Roman numeral Day". What fun we could have? " Monarch victor india, victor, india fly heading india india victor and climb to FL x-ray victor india india india", or " Verily I say unto thee Shuttle 2915 holdeth shorteth of 24 right less the peril of an incurrsion be thrust upon thee"!
What a spectacle it could prove to be, with aircraft going around from all sorts of runway directions, climbing and descending to very odd levels. The admission price for the Aviation Viewing Park would be at a premium!
However I don't like death and destruction much, so I think I'll just stick to what I know best, and to what I know works to everybodies satisfaction usually.
Bye the bye, it may not be too long before 24L does have an ILS! Will all hell be let loose then???? (No because it'll be 23L!!) Happy Days:ok:

[UP and Down Operator]

MonarchMan, I appreciate your understanding for the dynamic environment we all live in, but if you are that flexible i just wonder why it is such a problem for you to try an contribute to the attempt to increase flightsafety for all of us. If this can be done by helping atc with adding a single extra word to your message, then you should be happy to do that with your overwelming flexibility for changes and challenges.
Maybe you are so good that you never make errors, but some of us are not, and the error could be made on the ground as well within ATC, but no matter where it is done, the chances for correcting an error is so much greater if people work together and not agains each other.

I do think that refusing to add that little extra, even when required to do so by the local procedures, DO show arrogance and disrespect for the dynamic and challenging environment we all choose to work in.

With regards to the company I work for, then No, I have no intentions of using them as an alias for my private oppinions in here. I doubt any company will be thrilled about being part of a discussion as the one going on here :hmm:.

[Longchop]

Whislt we're at it....


Might i add that any heading ending with '5' (275') does not require the suffix degrees!


270' = two even zero degrees

275' = two seven five


I hear too many times ATC issuing clearances with the suffix degrees when it isnt needed....


Also cardinal points can be addressed as their names - North 360 - south 180 etc etc......


two penneths worth...done and dusted!:E :E

Thank you, please:} :}

[Married a Canadian]

Longchop

I agree that we don't need degrees. See the forum in ATC started by FLYB.
I don't say it even if it ends with a zero.
As FLYB has stated..interesting opinions.

[Aunty Ice]

"With regards to the company I work for, then No, I have no intentions of using them as an alias for my private oppinions in here. I doubt any company will be thrilled about being part of a discussion as the one going on here"

UADO Couldn't agree more, its bad enough reading his childish and arrogant point of view but he goes on to tarnish his company name with such drivel.

If he believes he is so right then I hope he continues his one man crusade during his next line and sim check. Every company has them and it is only a matter of time before they are weeded out.

AA

[Danny]

Just a quick reminder:

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.

So, would the sanctimonious/holier than thou brigades please try and remember that when ASSuming that one persons Username means that they actually work for a particular airline. Better still, please stop trying to impress upon us that, because you read it on here, that you are now going to avoid any approaches in your puddlejumper if you hear the callsign of a particular airline behind you. :rolleyes:

Oh, and another thing... if you think what's being described here as a bollocking then you have obviously never been to JFK or EWR where the ground controllers can use a level of verbal violence that has been known to reduce some crews to shivering wrecks in need of PTS counselling. :ooh:

[Magplug]

opnot said:
magplug
I assume in your latest moan ,reading back your Sid before departure, you are referring to to the listo / honiley check.
This check came in because professional airline pilots!!!!!! are issued a Honiley Sid and deciced to fly a Listo SID in doing so screwed up any in built separation.Also this procedure has not stopped, so do you really know what you are talking about

Yes. On my last visit on Monday I was not asked for a second readback.

I understand from your post that not only do you work at MAN ATC but furthermore are not receptive to feedback.

When you ask a pilot for a second readback of the ATC clearance between giving line-up clearance and then issuing the take-off clearance you are introducing a distraction on the flight deck at a critical moment. On most jets the pre-take off checklist is partially run to the point of awaiting line-up clearance. On receipt of the clearance to line-up or T/o the rest of the VA's are then completed. If you introduce a distraction at that point of asking for yet another readback of the departure SID then the crew must stop the checklist and deselect the SOP displayed page on the FMC to confirm the SID and then return to the SOP displayed page and then..... did we do the pre-T/O vital actions.....? 'cos the guy just told us to take off..........? What may seem like a minor thing to you actually introduces a very unwelcome & dangerous distraction for someone else.

The possible departure error of 'Pilot reads-back X but then does Y' exists at all airfields although at very low levels and is usually found to be caused by one pilot having taken the ATC clearance un-monitored by the other.
If you are having a greater problem with this issue at MAN than any other airfield then there must be a good reason for it as the same companies with the same SOP's seem to get on alright everywhere else. Perhaps some smarter analysis of those incidents might reveal shortcomings associated with critical similarities in the design of the SIDS or even something as simple as SID nomenclature. Would I also be correct in saying the 2 (confusing) southbound SID's, HON & LISTO, only exist as two separate departures merely for environmental reasons ?

I have read the replies from MAN ATC to MOR's from my company on this issue and the attitude seems to be 'This is the way we are going to do so live with it'. Frankly, that is where I draw my conclusions about MAN ATC.

What is not needed is the imposition of unilateral fixes with no regard for other more important flight safety areas.

[Aunty Ice]

Danny should you allow anyone to use a username that implies they work for a company after all it is pretty irrelevent if they do or don't. On second thoughts I think it is far worse if they don't. It doesn't take too much intelligence to come up with a non aligned original username.
Some people do actually take offence when their company name is hijacked in this way and I thought causing offence was something you discouraged.
I think your response was rather over the top and silly.

[caulkinpeter]

i was at gatwick a few years ago and a plane actually tried to land on the taxiway so more info given by both pilot and control the better i say for saftey all round
caulkinpeter;)

[saddest aviator]

Perhaps all of us might like to review our RT procedures by a quick review of CAP 413. Must say I'm fed up to the back teeth of hearing the likes of "THE SPEEDBIRD, THE MIDLAND Etc " I always thought the reply to a clearance to land was not 'cleared to land callsign xxx' but ' Land 24R Callsign xxx'
Perhaps someone might confirm

[Monarch Man]

With regards to the company I work for, then No, I have no intentions of using them as an alias for my private oppinions in here

And there we have it:D far easier to throw baseless accussations about, than back up an opinion based on some cold hard facts.
Thanks up and down, a mature and upfront approach.

Danny, my apologies for upsetting the membership, but I am entitled to an opinion.

[UP and Down Operator]

Monarch Man, you are not just upsetting the membership with your private opinions. You are upsetting most of the aviators around, because your oppinions and attitudes are a danger to not just all the other people flying around you, but also your passengers.

If you need backup and substance for that statement then go back in this thread and read your own responses, they say it all :ugh:

With regard to Danny's comment, then I will now assume that you have just chosen to steal an alias from Monarch, and that you work in a different outfit (??), but that wouldn't suprise me either. It is impressive that a "global experienced aviator" as youself is not able to review critisism from fellow pilots and ATC controllers.

About being mature...... well, no comments to that one from you!!

Danny: I think your comment about mentioning company names on PPRUNE is fair enough, as it is very bad advertising for a company to be part of a discussion like this, but that said, then PPRUNE should consider not to allow people to hide behind a company alias as well.
You can not allow that, and then forbid comments towards the name afterwards. Either we are anonymous or we are not.
It must be one or another.


"Gravity is just an illusion"

[GP7280-POC]

Gonzo said: "Blimey! This is more depressing than any soap opera!...."
:D
....
but is an extraordinary informational one by demonstrating whats going on in several sleeping heads over there on island :rolleyes: :ugh:

Non believers will keep on use UK Manual of Air Traffic Services

[Monarch Man]

If you need backup and substance for that statement then go back in this thread and read your own responses, they say it all :ugh:


Eh? care to clarify that statement, you've lost me there, I asked a perfectly reasonable question, and I asked it in the context of....There is a total lunatic in my current company who doesn't know anything about procedures, airlaw, atc, or r/t. Funny enough, he is ex Monarch as well..... do they train you guys to be dangerous or do you take special classes?? which I am still waiting for an answer to. Are you seriously suggesting that my employer offers "special" classes? or turns a blind eye to poor examples of airmanship?
Maybe UP and Down you are attacking my opinions, fair enough, but please don't equate MY OPINIONS with the greater mass of fellow aviators and flight Ops policy at MON.
I have already stated that the use of standard Phraseology, in my opinion, and in the context of establishing oneself on the only available localizer for RWY 24 at MAN, contributes little to SA. At no time have I descended into the kind of finger pointing diatribe, that you seem determined to do, my opinion is my opinion, if you don't like that, perhaps you should start your own country, and introduce your very own thought police, if not, well, its just too bad for you:D
I also stand 100% behind my comments relating to using Phraseology as "one size fits all" solution to level busts and runway incursions, it never has been, and it never will be the main safeguard that so many of the sheep on here seem to believe.

[GearDown&Locked]

To those who think some rules are rubbish please try to live with them. It’s not your game so you don't have the right to bend or change the rules. If you think obeying rules suck then find another game, read profession.

Of course I think MM is just joking around with those who have bitten the bait with all their teeth, gummy or not. Of course he will readback the correct clearance. He's probably venting here the words spoken inside the flight deck he cannot tell you on the R/T, a la Homepage. I believe it's called winding you all up. Right MM? (for pete's sake man say it's true!!).

Fly safe y'all.

[Monarch Man]

Of course he will readback the correct clearance. He's probably venting here the words spoken inside the flight deck he cannot tell you on the R/T, a la Homepage. I believe it's called winding you all up. Right MM? (for pete's sake man say it's true!!).


All except waiting for an answer from U and D, and that Phraseology is not the big safety net people seem to be convinced of:ok:

It is with a constant source of amusement and amazement at the holier than thou attitudes expressed on here, and then in the same breath, if you don't fit the concensus view...you assume the persona of someone that is responsible for the Kennedy conspiracy, along the way you've interferred with small boys, and to finish it all, you are the cause of global warming and you deny its very existance.

Its nice to know that there are so many perfect operators out there, very nice indeed:hmm:

So Up and Down, are you going to front up with an answer? or are you going to spout off once more about how poor anyone from MON operates?

[flown-it]

This is down to picking Flysh#t out of pepper but some time ago MM said "turn left/right onto heading xxx" . The word to or onto will never be used for a heading change..."too" or should I say "two" much ambiguity!!!
Just wanted to show that MM is in fact not quite as super perfect as we /he thought.:ugh:

[Monarch Man]

turn left/right onto heading xxx"

Flown it, you've blown it, this little gem is used on a regular basis by the MAN, and LGW director, and also by Essex radar...and YET again highlights the limitations of the system:=

Where did I mention I was super perfect?

P.S. top marks for picking up on it though, in all the personal insults flying about, I'd plumb forgotten I had put this little timebomb into text:D

[An Paddy Eile]

Right that's it. I've tried and tried to stay out of this, I really have. I've been reading these posts like a rubber band being stretched and I knew somone would let go of one end eventually and then off I'd go.

Monarch Man, you are a plonker. Anyone who questions things like the use of "degrees" at the end of a heading instruction is showing arrogance beyond belief. Let say you have 40 years of flying experience. Do you really feel that the combined experience of many hundreds and thousands of aviators over the past 100 bloody years is nothing compared to you? Do you really feel that those who make decisions to change phrases used after considering all the facts and figures of the past are mere amateurs compared to your unrivalled professionalism? Even if only 1000 pilots had ever flown in UK airspace and have only had 10 years experience of doing so and they decided that something needs to be changed based on their statistics or testimony, that would still be 250 times more useful that all the experience you have had.

You complete ****. You are the perfect epitome of all that is wrong in this business. You obviously have gotten into this much deeper than you intended and are much too proud to admit you're pushing your luck. Just don't post here anymore and we'll all pretend it never happened.

You remind me of my grandfather who met his neighbour head-on early one morning on a back lane after going round a blind corner in the middle of the road. He blamed the neighbour because "In all the years I've spent driving that road, at the same time every morning, yer man was never there before."

What a complete eejit. Wait till MON management get a hold of this stuff!

[mr.777]

Agree totally with above post...jesus man, how hard is it really to add L or R to an RT transmission?? As if the job of ATC isnt hard enough without having to put up with this c**p....:mad:

[ManchesterMan]

Well done Monarch Man...........

You seem to have upset quite a few on here on this thread
just recently.

Please keep bearring your arse for all to kick its good
entertainment.

MM

[Monarch Man]

Please keep bearring your arse for all to kick its good
entertainment.


No problem:ok:
You complete ****. You are the perfect epitome of all that is wrong in this business.

I've just ordered the rope, can you suggest a local tree I can use?
Just out of interest Paddy, how long has the word "degrees" been a requirement to be readback in UK airspace?
As for MON management, well as long as it is "zero cost" they won't be too worried:E

As if the job of ATC isnt hard enough without having to put up with this c**p....:mad:

No harder than any other day I'd venture to say:8

All this frothing at mouth people, very very undignified, pathetic as well.

[Black Knat]

Considering all the moaning about how cr+p the industry is, having to work stupid duty hours, no time off, no days off etc, how come some of you seem to have unlimited time to sit behind a computer and have a virtual punch up with your work collegues??!!!

Just wondering!

[Monarch Man]

Its called leave, and due to the crap weather today, what better way to discover the collective shoe size IQ of many on here by seeing how many bite?
I've yet to be disappointed, there seems to be one born every minute.

[Khaosai]

Hi Monarch Man,

the company you work for offers a fantastic range of flying, thus the experience gained is virtually second to none. This experience can obviously lead to some crews thinking that they know everything, which as we all know can be dangerous. Apparent to most on this thread is that you come across as slack, or a smart ass, or both.

I imagine you are still in the right hand seat, based elsewhere on the Monarch network, and doing the odd flight from Manchester. Knowing some of the guys in Manchester very well, i am pretty sure that they are on your case often for being slack, or a smart ass, or both !!.

I will now step aside...or should that be side step Left or Right for incoming.

Rgds.

[Monarch Man]

Apparent to most on this thread is that you come across as slack, or a smart ass, or both.


Sums me up succinctly and accurately.

the company you work for offers a fantastic range of flying, thus the experience gained is virtually second to none.

Sums up the flying aspects of my employer perfectly:)

Knowing some of the guys in Manchester very well, i am pretty sure that they are on your case often for being slack, or a smart ass, or both !!.


Are you sure you don't know me?

I can't wait for further insults relating to my upbringing, and accusations of dubious sexual practises.

[Virgin Territory]

Monarch Man, now you have packed away your hook and line you must be a proud man as you venture home tonight. Us lesser mortals salute you, you are an inspiration to all.

[Bandit650]

Pls all step back and consider how this ridiculous debate looks to hundreds/thousands of wannabees (like myself)....it reads *exactly* like my 5yr old son having a fight with his mates about whose turn it is.

So easy to get sucked into a stupid slanging match, and written comments can be easily recursively mis-interpreted.

One thought for Monarch Man. There is no such thing as anonymity on the net, just varying degrees of effort & skill to discover who and where you are.

I would have expected to have seen a bit more moderation here by now.

[Khaosai]

Hi Monarch Man,

do i know you.

Let me see: 757 F/O based outwith Manchester who gets involved in CC recruitment, and who on occasions is slack along with being a smart ass......na don't know you. Any chance of some more clues though.

Rgds.

[Monarch Man]

Khaosai now 320/321, used to be on the 330 as well:cool:never had anything to do with the CC. No one likes me at work either.

Any closer?

[Khaosai]

Ha ha,

i still don't have a clue to be honest even with the addition of no one likes you. You mentioned in a post from Dec 06 that you were flightdeck but got involved in CC recruitment. Was that a slight fib on your part.

Rgds.

[BYMONEK]

Funny old thing.


There I was, along with many others on here who start a normal discussion involving a perceived flight safety issue and now it turns out it was ' just a good old wind up'. Well blow me down with a feather. I thought for a minute it might have involved peoples lives so i'll step down from my sanctimonious high horse and stick with Jet Blast. That's where the real jokes are, eh? Why does that always seem to happen when somebody finally realises the majority view is against them.


Come on out to the Middle East Mr. Monarch Man. Face saving has been perfected off to a fine art out here! You'll fit in just great. :suspect:

[Monarch Man]

Come on out to the Middle East Mr. Monarch Man. Face saving has been perfected off to a fine art out here! You'll fit in just great.

That would require me to have a face or credibilty to begin with!

You can keep the mideast, as it happens EK turned me down, something
to do with poor R/T standards and a lack of airmanship.


still don't have a clue to be honest even with the addition of no one likes you. You mentioned in a post from Dec 06 that you were flightdeck but got involved in CC recruitment.

Sorry Khaosai, I though by CC you meant Company Council, my mistake.

[Khaosai]

Hi BYMONEK,

don't think he will get through one of your CRM courses though !.

Rgds.

[D'vay]

Are people still discussing this issue?

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

APE got it right!

Wonder what Monarch Man would make of a Mil Airfield that told him to join 24 right HAND?

And, come to think of it, how would he handle VFR circuit joining instructions to a parallel runway situation (if the mil ever got a place with parallels!) “join, 24 Right, right hand, QFE etc”.

On another thought; picture the scene with a 24L, right hand!:eek:

For the avoidance of doubt, I am being mischievous. :E

[ZeBedie]

One thought for Monarch Man. There is no such thing as anonymity on the net, just varying degrees of effort & skill to discover who and where you are.


If he doesn't work for Monarch, he doesn't have to worry.

If he does work for Monarch, he knows how good the IT Department is, so either way, he's unlikely to be worried!

[beardy]

from MM,
Phraseology is not the big safety net people seem to be convinced of
Odd use of english I know; however, every little helps and correct phraseology can help avoid confusion which on the whole can't be bad thing.

Nor can a little refresher every now and then, just to remind oneself what correct phraseology is (it does change sometimes.)

[GrumpyOldFart]

If he doesn't work for Monarch, he doesn't have to worry.


Not necessarily so, ZeBedie. As long as there is even a faint chance that 'Monarch Man' does actually work for that airline, as a prudent, cautious SLF I am obliged to ensure that my family, friends and co-workers (all of whom I value highly) avoid flying with Monarch. No doubt Monarch's lawyers would enjoy talking to 'Monarch Man' or his representatives regarding his use of their name, and his apparent delight in dragging their name into disrepute.

[cargo boy]

This really is getting pathetic. Keep going guys. I reckon less than 24 hours to getting this thread shut down with all that anonymous bravado. I'm sure Monarch are really worried that some anonymous PPruner is not going to fly with them because of his paranoia over someones user name. :rolleyes:

[fyrefli]

You reckon, Cargo Boy? A quick trawl of El Reg throws up:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/27/delta_blog_grounded/

along with a variety of similar stories.

Personally I find MM's "refuse to stop digging until I have to use the wind-up defence" attitude scary enough. We don't have standard RT in paragliding but even there people have learnt that sloppiness literally kills. Anyone with even the remotest understanding of how the brain works can see through the "there's only one ILS" argument in a split second.

[teamilk&sugar]

Wake up a bit guys....you are dealing with a wind-up merchant.

For your info, since June 2006 when this "Monarch Man" registered, there is not one single entry in the private monarch forum from this character....which with a mouth as large as his, is somewhat unusual is it not?

This thread is ridiculous and I'm suprised it hasn't been locked by now as you all plainly aren't interested in the topic title - just tit for tat one-upmanships.

Grow up guys.
:ugh:

[Mr A Tis]

Given MM seems to be on here every two minutes, I doubt whether he is even a pilot, certainly can't fly much.
If he is with MON, then it does make you think twice about booking to fly with his outfit.

[daynehold]

Quote:
As of 7th July 2007, Manchester Airport's runway assignments will be changed in relation to the Magnetic Compass bearings. The current headings for the runways are 054° and 234° with assignments 06L/24R and 06R/24L respectively (11/1/07). The new runway changes will mean the new assignments will be 05L/23R and 05R/23L respectively.

Guess dummies & toys will really get thrown out of the pram when this is implemented:{

Tower "Cowboy 555 cleared to cross 23Right at Golf one and hold at Victor one"

Cowboy 555 "OK"

Tower "Cowboy 555 please read back your crossing clearance"

Cowboy 555 "No, stop being petty"

Tower ":mad: "!!!

[Magplug]

I just remembered why I stopped looking at this form..... I wonder what on earth posessed me to come back ?

[lostintranslational]

If you do get some leave or time off to reflect on your standards of CRM, you may wish to look at the following link: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF

Happy bedtime reading!:ugh:

[Danny]

Unfortunately too many posters on this thread appear to miss the point of someone playing the devils advocate and really do appear to take some of it too seriously. It also appears to me that a lot of those that are getting quite upset on this thread are, but not exclusively so, not professional pilots or ATC people.

In view of the amount of upset that the interdiction by non-professionals has had on a few of the more easily upset professionals, I think that it is probably time to put this thread to bed. Having operated in and out of Manchester for well over ten years, all I can say is that they are a fine bunch of controllers and always enjoyed expeditious arrivals when arriving from the west. If they've decided to have a crackdown on non standard or irregular RT then good luck to them. It never hurts to be reminded from time to time about the correct way to say something.

Why so many on here should get so upset about it though, I have no idea. Is it only me that has noticed a marked improvement from some of the US carriers pilots that operate into MAN in their RT? Perhaps all that repetition until they get it right does work after all.

Before I make a final decision on whether this thread really should close, perhaps some of the pedants who have taken so much umbrage on here should spend a bit more time in the USA at the busiest airports and listen to how they manage to move so much heavy metal around without them all coming into physical contact with each other or falling out of the sky. I'm not condoning the fact that there is a definite lack of standardisation in the USA but some posters on here would have us believe that the perfectionism that they crave when it comes to RT must be observed by everyone else or else there will be a big disaster. It just ain't so. :rolleyes:

[madlandrover]

Just a quick minor hijack:
I always thought the reply to a clearance to land was not 'cleared to land callsign xxx' but ' Land 24R Callsign xxx'
Perhaps someone might confirm
CAP413: "Runway 24R cleared to land c/s".
Back to topic... Personally, as a GA wannabe doing ATPL groundschool, I've got enough time in my life to add a runway designator if required.

[Monarch Man]

Speaking as an individual who is in reality, a bit of a pragmatist, a student of flight safety, and on a personal level, someone with a passion for getting things right, I feel an explanation for my position is required.

First and foremost, I will happily hold my hand up and say that I have deliberately played the devils advocate. The thread topic in itself had already elicited some emotive responses before I contributed, and along the way I made various representations from a personal perspective. Again however I must reiterate that these are personal opinions and not the position of the company that bears part of my user name.

There are those of you on here that have been particularly vitriolic in your condemnation of my comments, I can only conclude that whilst your views are in contravention of mine, they have served to highlight certain common misconceptions of the processes that we utilize to improve flight safety, and as a general observation, miss the opportunity to view "bigger picture".

Danny eloquently makes his point, you may not think that certain area's are open for debate, but if you close your mind to the fact that we can learn from other methods and ideas, then we are consigning ourselves to mediocrity.

Who says we do things in the UK better and safer than anywhere else?

That is my final contribution to this thread, and I have to say I am disappointed by several posters on here who chose to send me personally insulting private messages.

[mainecoon]

thanks for the comment and the site
the voice of reason
graham en-route egcc
any probs with our service mail me

[An Paddy Eile]

but if you close your mind to the fact that we can learn from other methods and ideas, then we are consigning ourselves to mediocrity

What? Seriously, WHAT? I don't believe this. Is this not the point we were all trying to make to you in the last seven pages? Oh my.......:{

And as for:

I can only conclude that whilst your views are in contravention of mine, they have served to highlight certain common misconceptions of the processes that we utilize to improve flight safety

I doubt announcing that the CAA have got it all wrong and shouldn't require "right" or "left" or "degrees" or whatever else, is not a indicative of a misconception then.......@#*%$£"£ :mad: !

It is the last post of someone who has realised his only defense is retreat. Terribly disappointing really. I was just getting into it.

DANNY, PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD. IT WILL SAVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THE BACK INJURIES RELATING TO THE NEED TO STOOP TO THIS RIDICULOUSLY LOW LEVEL IN ORDER TO MAKE OURSELVES UNDERSTOOD. And as for professional or non-professional, what has that actually got to do with anything? I though anyone could post here. It is uneducated input that can sometimes make for good debate. Please don't put the amatuer contingent off!!!

[Beaver diver]

A very confused day @ KJFK...

http://home.online.no/~chainly/JFKGround.mp3

[Danny]

That sounds fairly normal for JFK. A bit of confusion but the ground controller gets it all sorted out. No real bollockings, just a good sense of humour and repartee.

If you think that's bad, you should see it at night, in the rain if it all goes wrong! :eek:

I've merged the above post into this thread to try and give some perspective to the discussion. For those of you who are not familiar with some of the busiest US airports but feel so strongly about correct phraseology, you should look at the airport diagram and try and follow the radio exchanges in the post above. Remember that at least 3 and probably all four runways are active and in use.

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0701/00610AD.PDF

Enjoy. It's quite amusing but at the same time, if you've ever operated into JFK then you'll appreciate problem that this ground controller had to sort out.

[PieterPan]

As a student of Aerospace engineering who's had some ATM and Avionics stuff, I have little practical experience. Therefore perhaps an obvious question...
Wouldn't mode s + multilateration help a bit? You know, having a screen of the airport layout with all the A/C blips+names... I don't know the JFK system setup and layout, so I stand by to be educated some more.
Very enjoyable listen any way you listen to it :)

[llondel]

Lovely bit of chaos at JFK. It sort of sounds like the ATC equivalent of the part of pilot training dealing with recovery from unusual attitudes - set up the field in a weird manner and let the controller sort it out.

[ATC Watcher]

Well, Danny, from an ATC point of view this JFK ground guy makes a bit of a mess of it, No ? and frankly he gets away with it because it is JFK , and it is busy.

I perticularly like the remarks to the IBERIA A340-600: " you're unable to do everything with that plane of yours " :E , but if a FRA Ground operator ( no controllers in there ) was telling that to a LH crew, he probably will get some problems (The German sense of humor is not extending that far..)

Back to the original thread, the point I disagreed about ( and still do ) is that by bullocking a Controller for following the rules, you do not improve safety, quite the contrary in fact.
That was my point, and God knows I am not an R/T Ayatollah , and miss the good old days when it was not so busy and we had a bit of humor on the R/T.

[ComJam]

Just to drag this back to Magplug's original post:

Is it REALLY such a hardship to readback the runway designator on your landing clearance? If you were landing at Schipol i'm sure you'd have no problem in doing so.... why is MAN any different?

If it's a requirement of the ATC unit that the clearance is readback, the controller has every right to make sure you read it back.

[Blue heaven]

Really interesting to read many of the posts on this issue, especially from those who appear to be well placed in understanding how serious incidents and accidents come about.:confused:
Not applying standard phraseologies may not be the sole cause in such an event, but has occurred frequently enough to be worthy of a mention in comprehensive studies such as here; http://www.eurocontrol.int/runwaysafety/public/standard_page/EuropeanAction.html That is, they are one (often large) hole in the Swiss cheese model. Line a couple more and bingo!:eek:
To suggest that MAN has a procedure for one runway that should be considered outside the scope of globally acceptable procedures being applied to ALL parallel runways (wether active or not, day night or otherwise) would lead us to a matrix of procedures being different for all those airports that have some quirks that differ from the norm. Now wouldn’t that be lovely.:=
Think about the poor sod who flies in just once in a blue moon, and how does he cope with these differences. Time for some to get out and smell the roses – not always smelling pretty when sh1tz are trumps and you’re holding a handful!:{

[Dave's brother]

I worked it out. Monarch Man could land twice a day at MAN, five days a week, 48 weeks a year, and it would take three years, nine months and two weeks before the number of times he said the word "Right" equaled the number of words he's written about not having to say "Right".
I may be a sad barsteward for working that out - but I feel like a sadder barsteward for having read it all...

[Three Yellows]

"I worked it out. Monarch Man could land twice a day at MAN, five days a week, 48 weeks a year, and it would take three years, nine months and two weeks before the number of times he said the word "Right" equaled the number of words he's written about not having to say "Right"."

....Brilliant. :D Well said!

[F4F]

Well, MAN ground was not at its best this very morning...
KLM med emergency (hope the gal/guy made it ok as the ambulance took ages to arrive...),
1001 (including ours) aircraft asking for pushback / taxi all at the same time,
merely made the slot,

Just one thing to do, stay :cool:

[Gonzo]

MM, (not that I'm expecting a reply)

Danny eloquently makes his point, you may not think that certain area's are open for debate, but if you close your mind to the fact that we can learn from other methods and ideas, then we are consigning ourselves to mediocrity.

Sorry, I must have missed the debate you were talking about. I, and anyone else, be they ATCOs or drivers, who cares about flight safety would be willing to debate the merits or otherwise of rules and procedures. That's how one changes them. Contravening them (or encouraging others to do so) in the first place is not how to go about it.

[Monarch Man]

Never fear Gonzo MM is here:D

Who says we do things in the UK better and safer than anywhere else?
Was the point I was making.

The whole L or R is a red herring, but I was more than happy to stoke the fire, so many "experts" on here rose to the bait, from uncle tom in his ratty C152, to seasoned ATCO's so in fact, I'd say I have actively encouraged debate, and helped some form opinions.
However, because my opinion and experience suggests to me that in UK airspace we rely far too much on phraseology, and neglect many many other area's that comprise the sum total of the concept commonly referred to as airmanship...does not make me a cowboy, or one who likes to live outside the rules.
So Gonzo, debate away.

The reason I have refrained from posting until now has been due to a few rather nasty personal messages recieved.

[kontrolor]

as I see it, this thread was started by self-loving pilot, who has no respect for procedures on the other side of the mike. why don't you ommit your cockpit chit-chats then (namely check-lists and such), you must know them by heart by now!

[Gonzo]

I'm still not sure that what you started was a debate.

I'd imagine someone who wanted to start a debate would be asking questions such as....

Why do we use the phraseology we do?
Why are we so reliant on standard phraseology?
Is there anything we can use to supplement it?

And one might also put forwards one's own point of view......

I believe it's naive to rely on standard R/T, because......
Here's what I'd like to see done.....etc etc.
in UK airspace we rely far too much on phraseology, and neglect many many other area's..........such as.......

I'm all for improving 'airmanship', I see good and bad examples of that every day I'm at work. A few things worry me. I cannot communicate with flight crew by using 'airmanship'. I only have my voice, and when I'm talking to a crew from Azerbijan, or China, or the Peruvian State Flight, I use standard phraseology because some of these crew will only know maybe fifty words of standard aviation English.

Why is it such a bad thing if we use standard R/T and encourage/train good airmanship at the same time? I don't want to start thinking "Ahh, a British crew, I can just talk normally to them, but the next one's a Turkish, so I'll have to use standard phraseology to him...."

[pilotbear]

If you are involved in an 'incident' or god forbid an 'accident' and you are no longer around to tell the tale (or even if you are), the fact that you may not have used correct ATC phraseology could be used to hang the 'PILOT ERROR' tag on you by the Press, the Company you have worked so loyally for or the AAIB.
Nice for the industry, your colleages and your family..:uhoh: .

Always read back what is said to you:ok: cover your arse and the arses of your crew:)

[WAIF-er]

I have read a lot of comments from people who say things like,
"ive been in this job for years" and "ive made more landings than youve had hot dinners" and other smart ar*e comments.

EXPERIENCE and COMPETENCE are two totally separate qualities.

I read the aaib reports at work and some of the things that pilots do that land them in bother really amaze me. I know of 2 particular fatal accidents, both involving light aircraft, which have left my colleagues and I asking "why on earth did they do that?"

In both examples, the comments in local newspapers etc all have words such as "he had been flying for 35 years and was very experienced".

Only by the grace of god, these sort of guys manage to bimble along all these years without killing themselves or others.

Experience is a double edged sword. It is invaluable in the hands of a competent pilot, but deadly when exercised by an incompetent.

[Lon More]

Reminded of words from an instructor many years ago "Good judgement comes from experience, mainly bad."
Why not do this in the accepted, standard way, not the way you want it to be - and nobody gets P'ed off with you, your blood pressure doesn't go through the roof and there's less waste of bandwidth;)