Congested RTF

[goddammit]

I'm sure this has been covered before, but i can't find it.

An aircraft has been "Cleared NDB DME approach Runway 04, report beacon outbound".
Pilot reports beacon outbound.
Controller says, "report base turn complete".

Why, at this point, do so many pilots ask, "can we descend with the procedure?"?

[FormationFlyer]

Possibly because some ATC units will reply 'Cleared to descend with the procedure, report base turn complete'. The inconsistency of which leads to such things.

At a military you get RT such as 'Cleared to descend with the procedure report steady inbound' or similar.

Talking of which as a quick aside...but who in the military came up with 'Cockpit checks, report complete' WTF? Whats wrong with 'Report cockpit checks complete' which firstly flows better and secondly fits the RT patten correctly i.e. 'REPORT' followed by the what/where and the conditions rather than some interspersed phrasing.

But as I say...its these differences between various units regarding their wording that tends to leave pilots potentially confused.

[goddammit]

Potential confusion is of course a safety issue. Pilots must check if they're not sure, don't think anyone would dispute that. The blame for confusion here rests with whoever started it.

Which came first: some atc saying it, some pilots asking every time, some training organisations teaching their pilots they have to ask?

How can the situation be resolved?

I've even heard some pilots readback "cleared for take-off" and follow it up with "can we line up?"
Is this going to be the next step down this wrong road?

[terry1261]

The problem starts with a lack of ability from a pilot or a controller and then escalates from there. If people are taught correctly for their role, and remain up to date and competent, such nonsense would not arise.

[DB6]

"Cleared NDB/DME approach ..... etc" = cleared for the whole procedure, down to the ground (hopefully). Requests for position reports (beacon outbound etc.) are for information only. It may be in the case you mention that it is not uncommon for an aircraft to be cleared for the procedure, "not below XXXX feet initially" in which case clarification may have been required.

[Dr Eckener]

Cleared NDB/DME approach ..... etc" = cleared for the whole procedure, down to the ground (hopefully).
Not in the UK. It only clears you until established, with further clearance required to descent on final approach.

[Islander2]

Cleared NDB/DME approach ..... etc" = cleared for the whole procedure, down to the ground (hopefully). Not in the UK. It only clears you until established, with further clearance required to descent on final approach.Leaving aside the need for landing clearance, and talking specifically non-precision approaches, that's news to me! Normally, after reporting base turn complete, you are merely requested to report at x dme. I don't recollect ever having been given further descent clearance at this point, yet have always continued the descent in the procedure. Appreciate it if you could give us a reference.

[Dr Eckener]

Sorry Islander, you are correct. I am confusing ILS and non-precision approaches. Did not read the thread thoroughly enough :\

[goddammit]

i do hope there is not a suggestion here that "cleared ndb ils approach runway 04" is any different. :\

anyway, how do we get away from poor practice and back to what should be STANDARD?

[FlyingForFun]

Personally, I don't see what the problem is.

It is very common, at many airports, to be cleared beacon outbound maintaining an altitude, and to be cleared for a descent later on the procedure. The usual reason is to maintain vertical seperation from an inbound aircraft, with descent being given only when you are laterally clear of the inbound aircraft.

Bearing this in mind, it is quite understandable that a pilot (student pilot or any other) who is used to being asked to maintain an altitude might, occassionaly, when he unexpectdely gets cleared for the procedure, want to ask for additional clarification.

I always teach my students that if there's any doubt at all about a clearance, the only thing to do is ask. And it's my experience, as a pilot and an instructor, that the need to ask for additional clarification arises more frequently when the clearance is different to what was expected or what has been received in the past.

I'd far rather ask, and see my students ask, than descend without being certain that was what I was cleared to do. Wouldn't you?

FFF
---------------

[terry1261]

The problem is congested rtf, but perhaps i 'm reading too much in to the title of the thread.

Seeking clarification is undoubtedly the correct course of action. Having been "CLEARED for the approach" why is further clearance routinely asked for by some?:ugh: (Are some pilots routinely unsure of what they have been cleared to do?Would that not constitute a competency issue? )In a busy atc environment, it contributes significantly to RTF congestion.

It has also been known to create confusion. A good example is an EXAM flight flown by a student from a reputable training organisation was cleared for the approach, once beacon outbound the student made the beacon outbound call as descent with the procedure was commenced, atc said "descend with the procedure, report base turn complete". The student thought he must have descended without clearance and, confidence shattered, flew a less than average approach. For the remainder of the flight he was distracted. Thankfully, and understanding examiner was aware of the situation and able to issue a pass with minimal additional flying. doubtless that pilot now has a generally low opinion of ATC and their ability to be consistent.

[goddammit]

terry1261 seems to have answered points raised by FFF:D

Can FFF answer the main question of the thread? Rather than just dismissing the issue.

[newbienigel]

I was trained by an organisation on the south coast. I was told to always ask when go beacon outbound, regardless of "cleared beacon outbound" or "maintain (a level)proceed outbound". At the time i just wanted to get trained and into employment.

I consider myself to have a professional attitude to my work, and consider those in ATC to be professionals. I now only ask if i have cause to need clarification. I feel i was wrongly trained, and that the training organisations are helping to contribute to the confusion.

That said, ATC are the main cause for the confusion. If they did it correctly and consistently this whole scenario would not be contributing to RTF congestion.

[FlyingForFun]

Can FFF answer the main question of the thread? Rather than just dismissing the issue.
Sorry, must try harder.

I think the best way to get my point across is to try to give equivalent examples.

I can't think of any good, common examples off the top of my head. A couple of not-so-good examples, though:

At my home airport, bad-weather circuits are nearly always done to the south, away from the helicoptor training area. Frequently, when I've previously asked for a bad-weather circuit, ATC have cleared me for a circuit to the north. I always query this (unless the clearance explicitly states a bad-weather circuit, which is rare), because experience tells me that very often there's been a mistake - for example, the controller has forgotten I'd asked for a bad-weather circuit. Sometimes, though, there's not been a mistake - the controller has cleared me for a bad-weather circuit to the north because the helicoptor training area is not active. But if there's any doubt, I ask.

Second example, also at my home airport. Unlike many of the other schools, my school's parking area is to the south of the airport. Normally, after landing, I'm instructed to vacate to the south. Occassionally, though, I'm instructed to vacate north. I nearly always query this, too, because the chances are the controller has not stopped to think about which school parks where, and has just cleared me to vacate on the side where most of the schools park. Or maybe not, maybe the route to the south is blocked, and I'm being taken a long way round for a good reason. Again, if there's any doubt, ask. (However, an awareness of priorities is important here. If there's an aircraft on short final behind me, then I'd rather vacate the runway, I don't care which way, and ask questions later, because I know that vacating the wrong way is unlikely to have any dire consequences, whereas blocking a runway which is needed is at best inconvenient, and at worst dangerous.)

This example, and the closest I can think of to the situation we're discussing: whilst downwind in the circuit, you are cleared to land. You read back the clearance (which is very unusual, because you usually received a clearance to land when on final, not downwind), and continue. By the time you've completed your checks, turned base, turned final, and you're approaching the threshold, a bit of doubt arises in your mind. It's so unusual to be cleared to land from the downwind position, that you're not 100% sure that the clearance really has been given. Once again, if there's any doubt, ask.

So, against the background of these examples, my point is this:

Let's say a pilot has become very used to being cleared outbound for a procedure whilst maintaining an altitude, the descent being given later on the approach (typically once you've passed inbound traffic). Then, one day, whilst in the hold, he is cleared for the procedure. He reads back the clearance and continues to complete the current hold. It's a windy day, he's not managed to hit his gate as accurately as he wanted, and during the inbound turn he has to make some corrections to ensure he established correctly on the inbound QDM. He completes the hold, goes beacon outbound, and is just about to start a descent, when a bit of doubt arises in his mind. Did the controller really clear me to descend? It's certainly not what he's used to, but he's been busy concentrating on the hold, and although he's reasonably sure he's cleared to descend, he certainly wouldn't bet his life on it. So...... what's he going to do?


Yes, in the ideal world it shouldn't happen. But it does. And I'd far rather ask for clarification than continue with an action which I'm less than 100% confident is correct.

But then, having re-read goddammit's original post, I have a bit of doubt in my mind - so I'll ask for clarification.

It strikes me, on reading goddammit's post again, that I may have misunderstood the question. Perhaps what you're asking isn't about pilots seeking clarificaiton on an uncertainty. Perhaps you're suggesting that pilots genuinely don't understand that the phrase "cleared for the procedure" includes the descent?

If that's the case, then I agree with you that it's not acceptable. The "excuse" for this would be that it does not happen often enough for pilots to be familiar with it.... but the "reason" why pilots don't understand the clearance is because instructors are not training their students properly. If something doesn't happen frequently in the aircraft, then the instructor ought to make a point of covering it in the sim, or in groundschool if a sim isn't used. I've come across a small number of students who, on the rare occassions they are cleared for the procedure, did not realise (as oposed to those who realised and understood, but by the time they went beacone outbound weren't sure exactly what the controller had said three or four minutes earlier) that this included the descent, and when I come across these students I make sure I debrief them on it. In fact, the last time this happened to me was this afternoon, and my student left the school without any doubt about the meaning of his clearance.

I hope that clears up my position on the subject. I certainly don't mean to be dismissive, but I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon of people who want pilots to descend when they go outbound without clearing up any uncertainty first.

FFF
----------------

[newbienigel]

cleared outbound for a procedure whilst maintaining an altitude

But that never happened. Quite often one was instructed to " maintain altitude 3 thousand, proceed beacon outbound" and given descent later, but that is sooooo obviously different to "cleared ..." for an approach, which soooo obviously includes both lateral AND vertical profiles

Surely the time to question a clearance is the time you get it, not some time later.

If you got "go-around" when you normally get "cleared to land" would you be unsure and query that??

:ugh:

[The Otter's Pocket]

No - The time to question is when you become uncertain. Have you ever been in a busy stressful cockpit? Newbie.
If you know that you could throw away an IR test of a couple of grand for the case of getting on the blower and asking for confirmation of a clearance.
You are either foolhardy or arrogant or both.

Last week I was cleared for an approach with the descent. The chap in the right hand seat didnt hear the clearance completely, so what do we do? Descend? Stay at 3k? or a bit of both?

[aluminium persuader]

Ok - from a controller's pov;

The difference is not between non-precision and precision approaches, but between procedural & radar approaches.

The scenarios you are talking about are procedural approaches (which you are often practicing in a radar environment).

If you are cleared for an approach, you are cleared for the whole thing, descent included.

Now, here's what you see as an inconsistency: You are a training flight. You want to practice a procedural approach, but the airfield has radar, and the commercial traffic is making radar-vectored ILS approaches. You're ready for the approach and nearing the beacon however there's ILS traffic coming down. Now I cannot clear you for the approach because I would lose vertical separation, so would you like to spend more money going around the hold again please? No? Ok, what I can do is clear you outbound with a height restriction until I can see you are clear of the radar traffic. So you get "cleared for the xxx approach rwy 0y, maintain altitude 3000' until advised".

Does it make sense now? We know time is money for you, and this is the expedition part of our mantra, "safe, orderly & expeditious".

Regarding mil/civ phraeseology; there are a lot of differences, although these are becoming less as a move is made to consolidate the two styles of ATC. What you have to remember, though, is that all Britmil pilots are trained to the same standard and the same goes for Britmil ATCOs, the idea being that at any base, even on deployment or in open warefare the baseline remains the same & instantly recogniseable. "Quaint" ideosyncracies like "cockpit checks, report complete" stem from the chance that the a/c you're vectoring could be a badly shot-up single-seat FJ with a badly-wounded pilot. The mil ATC method takes a lot of the pressure off the pilot and the way the phraseology is aranged acts as "attention-getter".

Hope that's helped, however I would always advise get into the tower!. Controllers may seem fierce & unapproacheable Gods (goes without saying, that last bit!;) but feed them enough chocolate biscuits & they are pussy-cats & eager to help!:ok::D:D

ap