Boy pilot died after tower gave suprise instruction

[Magp1e]

The Times Fri 13 Jul 07
A 16 year old pilot crashed on his second solo flight after being ordered by an air traffic controller to carry out an unusual manoeuvre.
He had become confused after receiving an unusual instruction.
As he was preparing to land he was put "in a situation for which his training and experience had not prepared him" after being instructed to carry out an unfamiliar and non-standard manoeuvre", the AAIB report said. He had received an instruction to perform a "go-around" which required him to make a left turn and fly North which would "certainly have been unexpected",
The report recommended that controllers should not issue complicated instructions that would require an aircraft in the final stages of landing to deviate from it's expected flight path unless there was an emergency.
Does anyone know why this go-around instuction was classed as an "unusual manoeuvre"?
And how do you feel that it is recommended that controllers should take into account the limited abilities of trainee pilots?

[lobby]

Here is a link to the AAIB report.http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/july_2007/cessna_f150l__g_babb.cfm

[bookworm]

Does anyone know why this go-around instuction was classed as an "unusual manoeuvre"?

The Times has it somewhat simplified. The instruction was:

“Golf bravo bravo roger and er maintain runway centreline but go around er circuit height one thousand feet there’s fast traffic behind to land”.

followed soon by

"Er golf bravo bravo disregard that just take a left turn and fly north I’ll call you back in very shortly ”.

[ShyTorque]

I can't understand why an aircraft on finals was required to go around because of following traffic. The student pilot, presumably being the lower aircraft, surely had right of way and the following traffic should have been told to go around.

[Contacttower]

Well quite.

[Hootin an a roarin]

"I can't understand why an aircraft on finals was required to go around because of following traffic. The student pilot, presumably being the lower aircraft, surely had right of way and the following traffic should have been told to go around."

At an airport with busy IFR traffic it can be hard to fit in VFR traffic between the jets. Sometimes I go for a gap with the VFR traffic then becoming No1, but on the understanding that if the IFR aircraft behind is catching up then the VFR ahead is sent around to hold north or south to wait for the next opportunity to land. This will not be done indefinitely and at some point a gap will be made for the VFR traffic but unless in emergency etc it will certainly not take priority.

I would sooner send a light aircraft around than a jet with 150 paying passengers! :ok:

[Tarq57]

Just downloaded and read the report (Thanks, lobby.)
Was a little surprised to read that the ADC had a PPL issued in'96, as, (with hindsight, of course) it is very easy to perceive how the student could become confused by the instructions issued.
However, it is also easy to perceive from the report that the ADC was in a slight pressure situation with time running out to make a plan and make it work. Likely this affected his choice of wording to the Cessna pilot.

And how do you feel that it is recommended that controllers should take into account the limited abilities of trainee pilots?

At our place, when we have solo (pre-PPL) students, an "S" is written on the right hand box of the strip. There are instructions in the handbook specific to our unit ( sometimes known as "Local Unit Orders") that complicated and conditional clearances are to be avoided to student pilots, and a few other remarks the details of which escape me right now.

It seems to be effective.
Even without the ATCO flying training that used to occur routinely prior the end of the eighties, when cost cutting got real serious. We haven't had any flying training of ATC trainees for a number of years, now.

The local flight instructors are also very "on to it", and before students solo they are exposed to a very wide range of traffic sequencing related manoeuvers, which is necessary because of the range of commercial operations and large speed differences. I would estimate the average student here is probably the equivalent, in traffic situational awareness, to a low time PPL elsewhere, so it's a bit hard to gauge just how effective the local procedure is.

I would also recommend against more than one or maybe two pieces of info/instructions within the same transmission, (ICAO suggest a maximum of three, to regular pilots,) and a nice, slow, even delivery.

[ShyTorque]

I would sooner send a light aircraft around than a jet with 150 paying passengers!

One question: WHY?

Unfortunately this accident tragically shows what can happen when a low performance light aircraft flown by a low-time pilot is sent around from finals! Safety of flight should always take priority over perceived "other priorities", such as commercial pressure; we all know it often doesn't happen.
In any event, in this case the following traffic was merely another GA aircraft joining the pattern and the pilot would presumably have had no trouble whatsoever in going around and joining the normal visual circuit.

[Magp1e]

Thanks Lobby, a very interesting read...Does this raise the question of when to allow a student to go solo?....He seemed confused by a number of instructions (including back-track). When operating in a shared circuit should he not be prepared to a good standard for instructions that would modify a standard circuit before the solo phase?

[perusal]

...the ADC was concerned that N347DW’s high speed might
result in it having to go-around beneath G-BABB, a
situation he considered dangerous and which he intended
to resolve before it could occur.


According to the man on the desk, that's why.

[Contacttower]

What do people think of the suggestion that students (both ATCOs and pilots) should have a call sign addition of "student"?

[vector4fun]

Errr,
When I last instucted in the US, training in go-arounds was a pre-SOLO item. In other words, a student should be able to demonstrate the ability to perform a go around safely before he could be signed off for solo. All my students did....

[LRdriver II]

Yep..
"Cleared for the option" was one way my instructor could mess with my mind during pre-solo training as you didnt know what to expect, Bump'n'go, full stop or Go Around. :ooh:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

vector4fun. Agree 100%. I think it's outrageous that a youngster who couldn't hold a full driving licence here in the UK should be sent solo at a busy airfield when he apparently had difficulty coping with a very common situation. I can't see that the phraseology used by ATC has any bearing on the matter; I have used "non-book" on many occasions when dealing with inexperienced pilots with great success.

A dreadful waste of a life and my thoughts are with the young pilot's family and with the ATC people involved.

[Widger]

In the military a three figure callsign is used or the word Tyro. This gives everyone the clue!

[Whirlygig]

When I was a student PPL, I felt very frustrated that my instructor didn't let me go solo until I could demonstrate engine-off landings, PFLs, go-arounds, low-level and/or restricted circuits and being asked to hold. I didn't go solo until nearly 40 hours under my belt.

I felt I was being unfairly and unnecessarily held back; even spoke to the Chief Pilot about it. However, this incident and another involving a student helicopter pilot who was asked to hold have made me think that the decision was wise. In the end, it made no difference to the number of hours in which I got my licence.

There is quite a bit of pressure and competition amongst students to go solo early on as a confidence booster (which I can understand) but, given there are many things that can make a circuit "non-standard", a few more hours to cover most eventualities should be given. In my case, a bird-strike!!! :eek::ouch:

All the controllers where I learned knew I was a student and I'm sure allowances were made.

My sympathies to the boy's family and all those involved as I am sure it will haunt them. However, having read the whole report, I can see a number of things which would have caused the holes in the cheese not to line up.

Cheers

Whirls

[ShyTorque]

Some info about the following aircraft type (gleaned from planeandpilotmag.com) : Typical approach speeds are essentially the same as those for the Piper Mirage, 90 to 100 knots, and if you touch down at 80 knots, the manual suggests not to use reverse below 60 knots to avoid possible prop damage. That means you’ll only be in reverse for a few seconds should you elect to use it. Jones says he sticks to beta mode when he needs a little extra braking and prefers to stay away from full reverse altogether (that only delivers about 70% thrust anyway).
The airplane is a flexible machine, comfortable and stable if you need to shoot an ILS into DFW at 120 knots, but it will as easily accept an 80-knot short-field effort into an unobstructed 2,500-foot strip. There’s no reason any pilot with a modicum of time in Bonanzas, Centurions, Saratogas or the like shouldn’t adjust to the Meridian in a few hours.


I think it is important to put one thing in perspective. A student on his/her second solo is likely to be working to the limit of his capacity just to get the aircraft around the circuit and safely back on the ground. Anything above the norm is likely to overload him. I watched a good friend of mine crash a JP3A on his second solo. After a self determined go around from a steep approach, he received a message from the tower along the lines of "Land and report to the tower on landing". The second landing resulted in very severe PIO and a crash from about 150 feet onto the runway. Thankfully, he survived, despite sitting on a live ejection seat which could have gone off, due to damage to the cockpit floor. He wasn't lacking in natural ability, he proved that by going on to win the course flying prize and later became a fighter pilot and a B747 captain.

I felt obliged to intervene (I called across "No - let her land, please!"; I was sitting in the tower, observing) when the RAF tower controller told my first solo UAS student to go around and change frequency to the tower alternate simply because her finals call was very quiet. He wasn't impressed at first, but after she had landed safely I explained that she was unlikely to cope with a mandated go-around and fiddling with the radio. He saw my point.

[MikeJ]

This is indeed a tragic case. Most posters appear to have read the AAIB report. But I do differ from the tone of some posts, especially Heathrow Director.
Apart from him not understanding 'backtrack', thinking he should do it on the taxiway, to me he seems to have done everything 'text book', until his failure to maintain flying speed in an entirely unexpected situation.
The radar shows he flew an excellent circuit, his responses on radio to ATC were clear and proper. On reporting 'downwind' he was told he was No.1 to land. In 1450 hours entirely private flying, to airfields of every size, including Gatwick, I have never had a 'number one to land' revoked. Of course we have all had to go around occasionally because of runway obstruction, but not for letting another aircraft to be No.1.
After reporting 'final' he was then told to go around, maintaining runway heading. I suggest that had he been left with this instruction, which he repeated correctly, there would have been no incident at all, I'm sure he was trained for this. But ATC reversed that instruction, telling him to turn North, which clearly left him in a situation, at very low level, he couldn't cope with.

My veiw is that this sad fatality was caused by the the two reversals of ATC instructions. One that he was No.1 to land, and secondly to go around on runway heading. Both of these were reversed, leaving a student in a postion for was totally unprepared.

There is no evidence from the AAIB report that the student, whatever his age, was not properly and responsibly trained and capable of a second solo.

[Contacttower]

I think it's outrageous that a youngster who couldn't hold a full driving licence here in the UK should be sent solo at a busy airfield when he apparently had difficulty coping with a very common situation.

I slightly resent the general assertion that 16 year olds shouldn't be sent solo. I myself went solo when I was 16 and on my third solo circuits session had to deal with lots of traffic spacing problems (usual GA scene on a Sunday afternoon: very busy uncontrolled airfield with everything from ultralights to twins wizzing round all at different speeds and some trying to do glide approaches :E ) involving going around at least twice, it is difficult. But it seems to me that the instructor in this case had every confidence in the boy and can't be blamed for sending him solo. From reading the report it sounded like the controller got a bit flustered and issued an odd instruction which was the main contributing factor in the accident.

[Magp1e]

Mike,

I agree the "reversal in instructions" were a CONTRIBUTORY factor but certainly not the CAUSE as you put it. We're not apportioning blame here, just trying to understand factors which learnt by the rest of us will hopefully make us better controllers/instructors/pilots. I think it is a valid point that a student pilot operating in a potentially busy/mixed ac type circuit,should be able to react to the unexpected before going solo.

[ShyTorque]

I agree with the last sentiment; this is why ATCOs were in previous years given some pilot training - so that they understood the pilot's perspective a little easier. The military also made it mandatory for student pilots to visit the tower at least once every month whilst undergoing basic flying training.

At the end of the day, we are all (by all I mean pilots, ATC, all other support services)hopefully here trying to make flying go on as safely and as expeditiously as possible.

[leuven]

I am appalled yet again, that some individuals are coming the old
"Well if you ask me" and "Of course I would never do that" routine.
AAIB have looked into all aspects and have published their findings accordingly. Why do certain controllers and PPLs for that matter consider it necessary to state their opinions and by so doing, indirectly seek to apportion blame. Sometimes it is far better to keep ones own counsel. I believe this to be one of those occasions
:(

[MikeJ]

Magp1e,
I think its semantics between 'cause ' and 'contributory'. Nearly all fatals have a chain which if any link had been broken, people would now be alive.
I this case, the ultimate 'cause' was that flying speed was not maintained.
But I posted my reply because Heathrow Director, an obviously highly experienced ATCO, stated that the the student could not cope with a common situation.
This means that it 'common' to tell an a/c that it is 'number one to land', and then reverse it. It is 'common' to tell an a/c reporting final anything other the 'cleared to land' or 'go around'.
In my opinion, and experience, HD is just plain wrong. In all my 37 years of flying I have never had either of these. It almost makes me angry that a student had to deal with this.
My thoughts on the early reports and rumours last year were that this may be a case of a young chap pushed too early. Now, reading the AAIB report, my view is that he was as good as any for solo, and, as I said, the circuit was 'text book', and the aircraft was found by AAIB configured correctly for final approach.

[Whirlygig]

Why do certain controllers and PPLs for that matter consider it necessary to state their opinions and by so doing, indirectly seek to apportion blame.
State their opinions? Yes, because the original thread starter asked for them. Indirectly apportioning blame? No, indirectly learning from the opinions and experiences of others.


Sometimes it is far better to keep ones own counsel. I believe this to be one of those occasions


I would normally agree in circumstances where the AAIB has not been published - speculation does nothing for anyone. However, the AAIB report has been published and read, pretty much, by all those who have posted.

By recounting ones own experiences, we can all learn and maybe further accidents like this can be prevented. A number of questions are posed; links in a chain, holes in the cheese.

I'm sorry if you were personally affected by this accident, really I am but we should all ensure that something like this does not happen again i.e. should ATCOs be informed of the student status of a pilot, should students be sent solo after 15 hours, should a larger, faster aircraft take priority over a small one ....

Cheers

Whirls

[vector801]

MikeJ

This means that it 'common' to tell an a/c that it is 'number one to land', and then reverse it. It is 'common' to tell an a/c reporting final anything other the 'cleared to land' or 'go around'.
In my opinion, and experience, HD is just plain wrong. In all my 37 years of flying I have never had either of these. It almost makes me angry that a student had to deal with this.

Well, in my opinion and my very little l experience I think your talking utter tosh!!

During my last cycle I had to send 2 GA lights around in 2 days because of their speed control on finals. It is almost a daily occurance at my unit when GA traffic is operating, for instructions to be changed purely because GA is of a lower priority than Commercial traffic. It is often commented that we control & seperate VFR in Class D as we've had so many incidents of lights just treating it as an uncontrolled environment.

I work at an airfield where you don't send your students solo if they don't understand a Controlled ATC environment e.g. Wake Vortex seperation, orbiting start, mid-point, end, traffic at 10miles keep your base tight, traffic at 5 is catching you up, break off the approach return to base report reaching (or go around, I say again go around, early right turn to the north)....

''Makes you angry that a student has to deal with this.....'' I'd sooner they learnt it now and have the experience stored in their memory banks for next time, than add to the amount of utter GA clowns there are out there who can't even read back a Clearance to Land!!!

I am in no means attributing blame to the unfortunate chap or ATC. Just kinda think that maybe a little more experience in these unusual circumstances, would stand all those that operate in a controlled environment a better appreciation of what can/could happen to them and what they should do.

Rant over..... awaiting incoming

[conflict alert]

ICAO - 'controlled airspace is for the protection of IFR traffic' - don't see the mention of VFR in there.............as a controller for 25 years, makes me think we tend to bend over backwards for the VFR's in airspace not designed for VFR's!! My 2 cents worth anyway.

[Whirlygig]

The prime objective of air traffic services, as defined in the Annex, is to prevent collisions between aircraft, whether taxiing on the manoeuvring area, taking off, landing, en route or in the holding pattern at the destination aerodrome.


Please can you let me know from whence you would like VFR traffic to depart and arrive? This will also include police and air ambulance aircraft, not just private pilots!

Should therefore, VFR traffic be subject to their own separation at a controlled airfield? Land at their discretion if ATC don't think it's appropriate to help them because they're not IFR?

I sincerely hope I've misunderstood your post.

Cheers

Whirls

[Spitoon]

ICAO - 'controlled airspace is for the protection of IFR traffic' - don't see the mention of VFR in there.............as a controller for 25 years, makes me think we tend to bend over backwards for the VFR's in airspace not designed for VFR's!! My 2 cents worth anyway. A bit of thread drift but it needs comment.

CAS is there to protect IFR flights.........by enabling VFR flights to be separated from them or by providing a known traffic environment where ATC can give them traffic info on relevant VFR flights (OK, this bit doesn't work so well in class E but I guess nothing is perfect!). It doesn't mean that VFR is not permitted, simply that VFR - by definition - gets 'less' service from ATC.

The airspace is designed for airspace users NOT for VFR or IFR or SVFR or ATC.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Vector801 wrote:

"In my opinion, and experience, HD is just plain wrong." and...

"I work at an airfield where you don't send your students solo if they don't understand a Controlled ATC environment .."

Not sure I wrote that was "plain wrong", because you seem to have agreed with my sentiments! I worked for some time at Kidlington Airport, where there would often be a dozen+ in the circuit plus IFR let-downs going on. It was very, very, frequently necessary to instruct training pilots to fly go-arounds and various other manouevres but they were properly trained to operate in a busy ATC environment before going solo and we didn't get too much busted metal or students.

[Chilli Monster]

Actually it was Mike J accusing you of being plain wrong - Vector was agreeing with you.

Mods - bring back the "quote" function please!

[Whirlygig]

As a complete thread drift, quotes are still available as I showed in my post quoting ICAO Annex 11.

You have to type [quote=person's name] quoted text followed by [/quote

The last bit has to end in a closing square bracket - I can't do it otherwise the whole thing would show up as a quote!

Secondly, copy the text you want to quote (highlight, right click, copy), paste into reply. Then highlighting the text in the reply, click the quote button above.

Agree here with Chilli, I also mistook the quote as original.

Cheers

Whirls

[perusal]

I agree with Vector and HD on this. There are so many different ways in which an ATCO will do something – 20 controllers will handle a complex busy situation probably 20 different ways and they have to keep changing their plan since the traffic situation is constantly changing. Standard phraseology cannot be used for every situation, particularly on Aerodrome Control, therefore controllers will slightly modify their words as necessary.

However I do think that far too few pilots understand the way ATC goes on. At my unit as part of the Unit Training Plan a new controller has to spend some time with the flying schools in order to get a some knowledge of how they operate/what they like/don't like etc. We hardly ever get student pilots visiting radar or the tower to see it from our side.

[Magp1e]

Mike,

My veiw is that this sad fatality was caused by the the two reversals of ATC instructions.

Didn't seem like semantics...I agree Swiss cheese was ripe with ATC instructions, lack of experience, air traffic situation....

Leuvan (spelling?)

See post 20....we're not trying to apportion blame. I'd like to think that we are a group of professionals trying to learn lessons from a tragic incident, I have certainly learnt from this event to be a lot more cautious than I already am when dealing with inexperienced pilots

[vector801]

Hey guys,

yeah, sorry for the quote thingy..... Was quoting MikeJ not HD.


Also totally agree with perusal & a bit off topic.

As you've all probably guessed I work at Cardiff. With the massive changes in Airspace last year we actively created pilot/atc forums with the local GA community to try to help them understand what will be required of them, what we may do to them etc...etc...

We never ever get visitors from the GA community asking to visit the unit for famil, only work experience people and the usual bods from within the airport. I've even taken it upon myself to get some of the locally based BMI crews to come and have a butchers so they can ask some of their obvious questions concearns with atc.

I remember when leaving the college last year, BA Week was so beneficial with the fam flights. Until recently fam flights at Cardiff counted towards TRUCE and were extremely encouraged.

On the flip side, its such a shame the flight training has been reduced so much for ATCO's.

[vector801]

Thought I might add this little extract from the MATS pt. 1 that all controllers work from. This may clarify for some of you, who has priority over who.

Category Type of Flight

A Aircraft in emergency (e.g. engine fault, fuel shortage, seriously ill passenger). Aircraft which have declared a 'Police Emergency'. Ambulance/Medical aircraft when the safety of life is involved.

B Flights operating for search and rescue or other humanitarian reasons. Post accident flight checks. Other flights, including Open Skies Flights, authorised by the CAA.

C Royal flights, Flights carrying visiting Heads of Statewhich have been notified by NOTAM/Temporary Supplement.

D Flights notified by the CAA carrying Heads of Government or very senior government ministers.

E Flight check aircraft engaged on, or in transit to, time or weather critical calibration flights. Other flights authorised by the CAA.

NORMAL FLIGHTS
i) Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with
normal routing procedures.
ii) Initial instrument flight tests conducted by the CAA Flight Examining Unit.
(RTF callsign EXAM)

Z Training, non-standard and other flights.


Again, not wanting to labour on about the point. If your instructor deems you experienced and competent enough to send you solo, you qualify for category Z. Ok, at Cardiff for your first solo we'll put on a local standby & give you perhaps a little more attention. Other than that we're not gonna bloody control and fly the plane for you. Everything else above you cat wise comes first and foremost and if that means you orbit for 45 minutes on base then thats what you'll do.

I'm sure others that frequent this forum who also work at busy COM/GA airfields will testify, students don't get sent solo until they are completely famil with most eventualities that a busy airfield can throw at them.

Sending someone solo who can fly an aeroplane is one thing, sending them solo when not prepared for said scenarios is utterly irresponsible and downright dangerous.

Once again..... Rant Over.

[bookworm]

There are so many different ways in which an ATCO will do something – 20 controllers will handle a complex busy situation probably 20 different ways and they have to keep changing their plan since the traffic situation is constantly changing.

That's inevitable. Every so often I get asked to do something that I've never been asked to do before, and it throws me. That doesn't mean the request shouldn't be made, but it's worth bearing in mind that the further from standard behaviour something is the more likely it is to cause confusion and error.

A go-around is a fairly well rehearsed manoeuvre even for a solo student, and the need to apply climb power is obvious. But the instruction to make a turn off final may have confused (particularly about the level he was supposed to fly at) enough to leave the student in a quite unfamiliar power/pitch/configuration/flightpath combination.

Standard procedures are never going to cover every case. But if we can find standard procedures that work, we should use them.

[ShyTorque]

I'm sure others that frequent this forum who also work at busy COM/GA airfields will testify, students don't get sent solo until they are completely famil with most eventualities that a busy airfield can throw at them.

Most eventualities, yes. However, I did my first solo in 1971 and been flying for a living since 1977. I've sent quite a number of students on their first solos too. I've never been asked to go around from finals for one behind, although I have been asked to expedite or reduce to minimum speed! I've never been asked to deviate from finals at 90 degrees, either.

Standard procedures are never going to cover every case. But if we can find standard procedures that work, we should use them.
Agreed. The following aircraft could have been directed to slow to minimum safe speed during it's ILS approach.

[Chilli Monster]

The following aircraft could have been directed to slow to minimum safe speed during it's ILS approach.

Agree with the slowing down, but probably worth clarifying here that, although IFR, it was actually carrying out a visual approach, not an ILS and was joining right base.

[Single Spey]

What concerns me most about this tragic accident is the utter failure of the Aerodrome controller and the Approach controler to successfully integrate visual joining traffic with circuit traffic. And regardless of whether the Piper was IFR, he does not appear to have been carrying out an instrument approach but a visual join.

The Cessna pilot was told he was number one. So why didn't the aerodrome controller tell approach to instruct the Piper that he was number two to a Cessna on finals. It is then the responsibility of the Piper pilot to separate either by adjusting his position or by going around.

Furthermore, what was the concern from the controllers that the Piper if instructed to go around would have done so beneath the Cessna which the controller considered dangerous? When the Cessna called finals the Piper was still almost three times as far from the threshold so what approach was he carrying out that would place him lower? Unfortunately there is no record in the AIB report of whether the Piper was cleared for a straight in Approach, and if so when this was agreed, nor of any co-ordination between Aerodrome and Approach about it.

Can anyone tell me what independent standards checks are carried out on civil ATCOs at aerodromes like the one featured in the report?

The AIB has reported on the circumctances and made safety recommendations, has/is any further action being taken?

[vector801]

ShyTorque

I've never been asked to go around from finals for one behind, although I have been asked to expedite or reduce to minimum speed! I've never been asked to deviate from finals at 90 degrees, either.

Ok, Scenario for you....

Your asked to Go Around on short finals because the following has caught you up, for example a light, medium or heavy jet. There is no chance of a successful touch & go or full stop to vacate, possibly using a Land After.

Please answer the following if you'd be so kind....

As a pilot what would you expect the controller to do?
As a controller what would you do?

If the controller sent you around, do you really think with all your years of experience he's gonna let you climb straight ahead with a Jet less than 2 miles behind doin 2 miles a minute??? What if the Jet go's around short final due nasty turbulance (which is common at Cardiff), Possible Bird Strike?? Just imagine the traffic information and how mmm ?distracting? it would be for the Jet Crew in a scenario like that. The Jet already has possibly a better picture than you in front through Traffic Info passed earlier. The lighty is almost blind and would of course be made to make an avoiding turn.... Oh thats right, you'd like to continue climbing straight ahead.... mmm.... clean up the aircraft, get it set for a nice 15 degree angle turn for x wind at say 800' agl... all standard flying, except this ain't a standard situation is it. All this happeneing whilst the crew of the jet are hitting max power (if they have it), go around checks, stabalizing the a/c..... then bang!!! they've ran into the back of you because you've never had to initate an early turn after a go-around??? All TRM thinking, just because your a lighty doesn't mean your not part of the team, even if your not conscious of it!!

One thing that always stuck with me through training is, treat every approach as a possible go around e.g. ''Fail to Prepare, Prepare to Fail,''

Is it me, or is anyone else here truly shocked and somewhat puzzled at some of the responses being posted here!!

[Married a Canadian]

What is interesting to me about this incident is that alot of ATC complain or don't like all the extra VFR or non standard flights etc in already busy airspace. So why issue a go around to Number 1 which keeps him in the air for longer, dosen't reduce your workload any less and adds to your already busy circuit?

Who is easier to control? The student pilot who may or may not be quite sure of the procedures and aircraft capabilities...or the jet traffic with 150 fare paying passengers on board being flown by a pilot who has a few more hours in flying time and hopefully a bit more awareness of the situation (that ATC should have told him about).

Lessons to be learnt by ATC in this aswell....those flight priorities don't always apply if it is easier to get someone on the ground where they will be safer and out of the way.

[Whirlygig]

Is it me, or is anyone else here truly shocked and somewhat puzzled at some of the responses being posted here!!

I wasn't. Until post 40. Although post 26 nearly had me going!

The point is surely, if someone with thousands of hours has never been asked to perform a particularly maneouvre, then it is not unreasonable of that person to suggest that it is not common or usual.

Cheers

Whirls

[Single Spey]

Shy Torque
Your asked to Go Around on short finals because the following has caught you up, for example a light, medium or heavy jet. There is no chance of a successful touch & go or full stop to vacate, possibly using a Land After.

Please answer the following if you'd be so kind....

As a pilot what would you expect the controller to do?
As a controller what would you do


If a controller lets this situation develop then as a pilot I would question their professional competence.

I would expect the controller not to send me around but to let me land, and send the following jet around (iaw the normal rules of the air). I would then expcect the controller to apologise to the following jet or to reprimand the folowing jet for not maintaining the appropriate separtaion if he was on a visual.

When all is said and done, air traffic controllers expect pilots to be able to operate to a standard so pilots should expect the same from controller.

[Magp1e]

Not common, or unusual, agreed. An instruction to turn away from finals. But shouldn't it be within the scope of a solo pilot?

It appears that there wasn't much intergration planning between App and Tower but there again, someone will say VFR circuit; see and avoid.

I can't understand the initial instruction of "fly the centreline and climb". Would not a go-around would move no1 to the deadside so that if no2 climbs away there is no immediate confliction.

Interesting to see how this incident is viewed slightly differently by those wearing pilot goggles and those wearing controller shades.....maybe highlighting minor anomolies in the interpretation of the services being provided....It's good to talk.

[vector801]

Whirlygig

The point is surely, if someone with thousands of hours has never been asked to perform a particularly maneouvre, then it is not unreasonable of that person to suggest that it is not common or usual.

Tis a fair point. But what do you do when you are presented with an unusual maneouvre, i know... how long is a piece of string. It therefore shows, just because you've been flying for years doesn't make you experienced in certain areas i.e. possible turn after a go around. Is the controller to know you might not ever have experienced this (and other situations, discounting student solo pilots on this arguement) and therefore are unable to comply with the instruction?? After all, even the most niave of controllers would think, whats the big deal, you go around straight ahead to a level at which a turn can be safely made....

Tis a good job that when the ATCO's at our place experience unusual situations..... which is every bloody time they plug in at the mo. They don't throw their dummy's out of the pram, unplug and try to justify that their inability to provide pilots with a good service, is down to the non-standard/uncommon/not experienced actions of pilots and their flying/requests....

Swings & Roundabouts me thinks.......

[Whirlygig]

discounting student solo pilots on this arguement

But this is precisely what we're discussing and what the originator asked - whether controllers should all be made aware of a pilot's experience and treat them accordingly.

If a turn to the north on final is an uncommon and unusual request, then I'm not sure that the student's instructor could have reasonably been able to foresee that as a circumstance which the student could face and therefore have been able to brief him. I'm sure a go-around would have been within his capabilities.

I can see right through that piece of Emmental :(

Cheers

Whirls

[pulse1]

I may have missed it but nobody has noted that ATC were concerned about the number of unidentified aircraft in the area who were not in contact with them. This was given as a significant factor in their decision not to delay the faster traffic.

[vector801]

Yeah, I see your point.

I can probably learn from this, as again, I only have 9 months valid experience myself.

Try to see it from our side. What if on my second hour as a valid controller, i'm presented with a situation i'm not sure of, one that would require a quick action where I couldn't attain help. I then make the wrong decision and it causes a loss of life. Would I be criticised for incompetance or sympathised with, due lack of experience??

[Whirlygig]

Try to see it from our side

I do. Which is precisely why I am the exception that proves the rule and took advantage of Norwich Tower's hospitality and got shown around!

Cheers

Whirls

[Hootin an a roarin]

I know I have missed the original point but i need to respond to the reply from Single Spey given to Shy Torque.

"Quote:
Shy Torque
Your asked to Go Around on short finals because the following has caught you up, for example a light, medium or heavy jet. There is no chance of a successful touch & go or full stop to vacate, possibly using a Land After.

Please answer the following if you'd be so kind....

As a pilot what would you expect the controller to do?
As a controller what would you do

If a controller lets this situation develop then as a pilot I would question their professional competence."

Oh really?

I work at a major airport which still has a fair share of light aircraft knocking around.

In my view you have 3 choices to the scenario:-

1) Do not ask to fly through my zone; stay outside and fly around or land at a less busy place where you will not be pushed down the pecking order.

2) When we are busy we may have 2 radar controllers on approach, both busy, and the area guys busy feeding us IFR traffic. No room for large gaps to fit in a C172 to land. You therefore hold somewhere in my zone awaiting a 'gap' to fit you in.

3) Approach makes a slightly larger gap and I make a decision to 'try' to fit you in. However once you are on finals, not cleared to land, it becomes obvious it will not work, I send you around back to your hold.

In your scenario this is unprofessional. I should send the jet around creating a problem for my radar colleagues who may not have a lot of airspace to play with. This in turn has a knock on effect as we have to use our hold which delays more than one IFR aircraft and also ups the workload of the Area boys.
All so I can land a C172. Yeah right what a good plan!

This is the commercial world and it is common. I could not care less if someone has been flying since 1972 and has never experienced being sent around because of traffic behind catching him up, it happens.

[BHenderson]

I have personally been in exactly the same situation as the student in this case. I was on short finals solo i.e. 300ft albeit flapless and at a good rate of knots in a C150. I was aware of jet traffic behind hence my speed. I was then given the instruction 'break off approach, return to left base'. I'm sure you'll agree that this instruction is far simpler than the one issued in this case. However I do not hold ATC responsible, because, as it has been drummed into me:

1. Aviate
2. Navigate
3. Communicate

and also:

Maintain thy airspeed lest the Earth rise up and smite thee.

As it says in the report the Cessna can have a nasty wing drop, but in my experience you need a lot of back pressure to induce it. I feel this was a case of inexperience.

Bobby

[Chukkablade]

Well, having read through the AAIB report, and both this and the other thread on the subject appearing on PPRUNE, for me it comes back to the one thing.

The lad flying it got it wrong. Have a pop at ATC/his instructor.Whoever you like, but thats it in a nutshell. Aviate/Navigate/Communicate. He didn't.

When I did my first spamcan solo, I had to do orbits to let way for the hoofin' big Antonov transporter that was coming in at a rate of knots behind me, then wait for his vortex etc to clear. It was a no fuss, no drama moment. I can't see why some should think it would be? he wasn't even asked to do that, just fly straight and level, and ATC were gong to sort him out in due course. Thats whats sad here - it was a basic instruction he couldn't comply with.

Whether or not this kid was current enough for the task in hand(his 28 days currency was V.poor IMHO) and whether or not he had a 'confident face' the instructor was duped into trusting, who knows, but sadly, he got it wrong. Why snipe at ATC because of it?

My heart breaks for the kid, and his family. Tragic is not the word. But facts are facts.:(

[aviator84]

Its such a sad case and one that has stuck in the back of my mind since, just read the AAIB report, i can see how the young pilot could have got overwhelmed with the atc orders being given especially when already on finals and your constantly monitoring your rate of descent and airspeed aswell as keeping a strong visual ahead - and then be told to go around/and or head North in the opposite track of the base leg, id be wondering what was going on aswell and could see how checks like reconfiguring the aircraft to climb or cruise speed in these few moments could be overlooked especially with being so close to the ground also rather daunting, in a situation like this for a student (minus the instructor) i could see how the instructions given by atc would be carried out parrot fashion ie the turn North and then theres the confusion of the situation at that time + im sure i wouldnt take into account loosing a few Kts of airspeed due to turning crosswind. Will

[flower]

I raised this point on another forum but no one cared to answer.

You learn to drive you do not go solo until you pass the test. You train as an ATCO you do not go solo until you pass a test. So why the heck do you send up guys with bugger all experience alone in an aircraft ?
It isn't necessary to have gone solo to continue on with your training, to me
going solo should be shortly before your test not just a few hours in to your training.
That is why this went wrong, not because an ATCO had to correctly break off training traffic ahead of scheduled traffic or because they gave him a turn to the north or south which BTW is common at airports who also integrate in GA training traffic but because this guy simply didn't have the knowledge to cope with unusual circumstances. He was sent solo too early and I'm not blaming the FI but the system which seems to have an almost unnatural obsession with how few hours you do before going solo.

[aviator84]

Exactly, i think around 15 - 16 hours is the average for being sent up solo which is far too early, ive around 16 hours on PA28'S and have been told im ready for solo a while back but to be honest i really dont feel ready and im not going to jump in at the deep just because my FI thinks im capable, i mean this is no walk in the park, its a flying machine that can well potentially do some damage if not handled correctly, i think as youve said training should be allowed to continue past the circuit stage and solo on in the later stages - more hours/experience = more confidence/ability. Its really like sending a cat in to a heard of dogs and seeing if its done it enough times to come out unscathed.

[Contacttower]

When I first went solo after 12 hours at the tender age of 16 I was so scared of letting the plane stall that I probably wouldn't have heard ATC mashing their words over a go around! I don't think the idea of sending people on their own at that stage is necessarily wrong, I think instructors just need to make very careful judgements about students. Personally I think the lack of currency was probably the main cause of this accident, if one is going to pin down the reason why the boy actually let the plane stall.

[Single Spey]

Hootin an a roarin
1) Do not ask to fly through my zone; stay outside and fly around or land at a less busy place where you will not be pushed down the pecking order.

2) When we are busy we may have 2 radar controllers on approach, both busy, and the area guys busy feeding us IFR traffic. No room for large gaps to fit in a C172 to land. You therefore hold somewhere in my zone awaiting a 'gap' to fit you in.

3) Approach makes a slightly larger gap and I make a decision to 'try' to fit you in. However once you are on finals, not cleared to land, it becomes obvious it will not work, I send you around back to your hold.


1) It is not your zone - it is airspace in which you provide a service to all aircraft that have the ability to comply with the appropriate rules. In the case under discussion the flying school was based at that airport so no doubt they paid for the privilege and therefore for the controllers to provide a service to them.

2) Ok so I wait for a gap - no problem there as long as you have the skill and competence to provide that gap.

3) If it will not work then your planning or controlling has gone wrong. The solo student who got it wrong suffered the unfortunate consequences. You are not in quite the same vulnerable position, however if your decision does not work then you have got it wrong too. In other words maybe you are lacking the professional comptence required to do the job.

As an ATCO perhaps you could answer one of the point I posted earlier: how often are ATCOs at airports in the UK independently assessed for competence by the CA or SRG?

Chukkablade
The lad flying it got it wrong. Have a pop at ATC/his instructor.Whoever you like, but thats it in a nutshell. Aviate/Navigate/Communicate. He didn't.


Yes but so it appears did ATC with their inability to effectively coordinate joining traffic with circuit traffic which is what lead to the necessity to change the clearances issued to the student pilot - however I have not yet heard of what follow up action, if any, has been taken.

flower
That is why this went wrong, not because an ATCO had to correctly break off training traffic ahead of scheduled traffic


Unless I'm mistaken, nowhere in the AIB report does it state that the Piper was scheduled traffic.

[vector801]

Single Spey

As an ATCO perhaps you could answer one of the point I posted earlier: how often are ATCOs at airports in the UK independently assessed for competence by the CA or SRG?

ATCO's are examined once every year by either SRG/Local Competency Examiner or both, in both the practical environment and an oral board, which must be passed to retain licence validity. We also have to complete TRUCE (Training In Unusual Circumstances & Emergencies) each year. This can & often and does include any emergency training and experiences, go arounds, SRA's, LVP's etc....etc...

You are not in quite the same vulnerable position, however if your decision does not work then you have got it wrong too. In other words maybe you are lacking the professional comptence required to do the job.

You are so quick to jump to a conclusion that our planning is wrong and question our competence at the slightest hint that things may not have fitted your plan and picture. You really do need to sit in on a busy App/Area sector and see how much is done to accomodate the GA community so it works out well for all. It's evident that you haven't a clue about the bigger picture and are keen to continue criticising the people that, at the end of the day are responsible for you and the many others that receive services from ourselves.

[perusal]

As far as I see it, it wasn’t a case of delaying commercial traffic at all. I tend to give aircraft priority judging by where they are in the air and how their flight characteristics are, not what category of flight they are. If I’ve got a trainer in the hold wanting the procedure and I’ve got jet traffic at 12 miles vectoring for the ILS, I will give priority to the jet. If the jet is at 20 miles then it would probably get number 2 to the trainer, obviously dependent on particular circumstances at the time. The category of flight normally comes last in the controller’ decisions – if we can get them down we will do so. It’s our job to shift traffic and we are paid for using our own judgment and initiative in the circumstances.

I may have missed it but nobody has noted that ATC were concerned about the number of unidentified aircraft in the area who were not in contact with them. This was given as a significant factor in their decision not to delay the faster traffic.

Have you ever tried providing a radar service with vectoring to an aircraft released two minutes before the overhead of an airfield in the South of England in Class G using primary radar only? Doesn’t matter whether the conflicting traffic is at FL40 or FL400, the controller has to get five miles on it. As a radar controller, I can certainly see why the approach controller wanted to get the IFR down as soon as possible. And if there was a go around, nobody can guarantee whether that aircraft would accept a visual circuit. In addition the IFR was able and willing to carry out a visual approach and was given traffic information on the Cessna.

I would bet a large chunk of my salary that the controller(s) had not even considered flight priorities when they planned and executed their sequence. They did not, however, expect that the student pilot would not interpret their instructions correctly.

It is not your zone...

When I’m doing Radar it most certainly is my zone Matey. If I clear you in, it is on my licence, and, given the litigious world we live in, if you cock up my head may well be on the block. If you sound or act like a clown you ain’t getting in on my watch.

...how often are ATCOs at airports in the UK independently assessed for competence by the CA or SRG?

ATCOs are assessed every 12 months. Depending on the strength of the unit either SRG will do the renewal otherwise a Local Competency Examiner based at the unit will carry out the task on their behalf.

[Gonzo]

As an ATCO perhaps you could answer one of the point I posted earlier: how often are ATCOs at airports in the UK independently assessed for competence by the CA or SRG?



UK ATCO licences are renewed annually, after being assessed by designated unit-based examiners. This is based on both continuous assessment by Local Competency Examiners throughout the year and a dedicated practical check and theory assessment.

Edit: As you see in the above post, at smaller units the regional SRG inspector would carry out the practical check.

[flower]

3) If it will not work then your planning or controlling has gone wrong.
That has to be one of those statements which prove that some of those without the yellow peril simply do not understand the big picture.
We plan, we execute but we also rely on other factors not least pilots, with the best will in the world plans go wrong they do not mean that either the plan or the ATCO was incorrect. The difference between someone who thinks they know and ATCOs who do the job is that they are able to continuously amend their plans. Every action we take impacts on the overall plan, one word in from someone unexpected, quite often a feature on either a Tower frequency and on LARS, means that an instruction gets delayed and thus what would have worked very nicely thank you now doesn't.
The worst critic of an ATCO is the individual themselves, they will think about the situation they created and how they could have dealt with it better and by that learn. Competence is constantly assessed ,although a yearly examination takes place should an ATCO fail to maintain competence within that year they will be subjected to either further training or have their licence pulled, a situation I know many of us who have controlled LARS wish could happen to some GA pilots.

[Chilli Monster]

JESUS! I've seen some crap written in my time but this thread is really starting to take take the biscuit :ugh:

Flower, aviator84 - first solo is a confidence booster, plus the licence issuance requirements determine x amount of dual time and y amount of solo time. It's worked in the past, it'll work in the future and has no bearing in this accident (I went solo in less than 3, licence in 20 - didn't do me any harm).

Perusal - it's not your airspace, contrary to your opinion. You are mandated to provide access under an authority from DAP, and to provide access to that airspace to all airspace users when appropriate and able to do so.

Single Sprey - I don't tell you how to fly your aircraft, you don't tell me how to efficiently handle my traffic. If you're on a touch and go and remaining in the circuit then it may suit my planning best to bring you to final and then send you around, landing the B737 / A319 / whatever behind you. It works, it's accepted practice, it's efficient and it's good training for the student provided you don't do anything stupid with them afterwards. Far more useful to the pilot than spending all afternoon going round in circles downwind! If you think you can do better - get yourself a licence if you think you've got the stones for it ;)

Married a Canadian - Read the report, no.1 was a trainer who wanted a touch and go - why land it? Go around was the better option (as I explained above)

Vector801 - sorry mate, doesn't matter inexperienced you are once you have that certificate of competence signed then the buck stops with you. Cover your ar$e always :ok:

If this accident has proved anythng from an ATC perspective - keep it standard, or get bitten :\

[perusal]

it's not your airspace, contrary to your opinion. You are mandated to provide access under an authority from DAP, and to provide access to that airspace to all airspace users when appropriate and able to do so


When appropriate and able to do so I always will.

[flower]

Sorry Chilli I must disagree with you
Flower, aviator84 - first solo is a confidence booster, It's worked in the past, it'll work in the future and has no bearing in this accident (I went solo in less than 3, licence in 20 - didn't do me any harm).


It isn't a confidence booster to many, they can feel quite concerned they have not gone solo at some ridiculously short point in time.
Far better to give someone the experience to deal with situations where they really gain in confidence. I would suggest the young boys lack of experience the inability to question instructions the lack of understanding what back track means all lead me to think of someone feeling pushed into a first solo scenario. How many times on this and other aviation boards have we seen predominately young boys saying I must do my first solo on my 16th birthday, all a load of tosh. The milestone should be passing their skills test not going up for an ill prepared solo .

[Chilli Monster]

Then I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree. The student would have been at a level to fly solo circuits, and he would have been prepared to either go-around in a standard fashion, in the same way that he would have been prepared for unusual eventualities such as an engine failure after take-off.

If every possible eventuality had to be taught, especially those out of your control, nobody would hold a licence.

[Whirlygig]

Whirls is starting to detect some aggression here and it's not going to do anyone any good especially when she starts writing in the third person!

We ALL have something to learn from this:-

1. To instructors - make sure you're student is fully competent and briefed for all likely scenarios when sending a student solo. If this means waiting until that student has pushing 30-40 hours, then so be it. Please do not kowtow to pressures to send students solo early when it's not in their overall best interests to do so.

2. To controllers - please take into consideration the relative abilities of those in your circuit. This should be especially so if a student is from your home airfield. Be careful of non-standard requests and terminology with students especially.

3. To pilots - be aware that the unexpected could happen and that unusual ATC requirements may be made of you. If you're fazed, then say so! Failing that, aviate, navigate, communicate.

This is starting to turn into an "us and them" situation which is doing no-one any favours. A young lad lost his life and if any one of points 1 to 3 above had been followed, then maybe he would be alive to tell the tale.

I'm going to bed now and I want to see harmony and goodwill restored here.

Cheers

Whirls

[vector801]

Hey Chilli

I know full well that the buck stops with me. :)

I made the statement.... ''Would I be criticised for incompetance or sympathised with, due lack of experience??'' as a question to others really as they seem to be very quick to criticise ATC in this/any instance. :=

I was keen to see their view in that light.....

[Chilli Monster]

Wolves aren't renowned for displays of sympathy - especially when baying for blood :(

[Dream Land]

Interesting thread name, "after tower gives surprise instruction", :mad: give me a break, this is a normal flight operation. If I, or anyone else here had been on final behind this lad and been given a go around, we probably would be screaming at ATC, one is a practice approach and two is a full stop, ATC did exactly the right thing IMO.
xx
As far as student capabilities, the flight instructor is directly responsible for the student, bottom line, that is where the buck stops.
xx
IMO it IS the Local controllers control zone, he is directly responsible for the separation of IFR traffic and participating VFR traffic, traffic permitting.

[cavortingcheetah]

:)

Quite right Whirlygig and hope you have arisen fresh and invigorated for another day.

Somewhere in the dim depths of the brain when one was more of a menace to aviation than now, three words come to mind.
Aviate.
Navigate.
Communicate.
No student should be sent solo until he is quite proficient in all three of these abilities, within the context of the specific circuit in which he will fly solo, regardless of how many hours of demonstration and training this might require.
:suspect:

[Single Spey]

perusal
When I’m doing Radar it most certainly is my zone Matey. If I clear you in, it is on my licence, and, given the litigious world we live in, if you cock up my head may well be on the block. If you sound or act like a clown you ain’t getting in on my watch.


Nice attitude - unfortunately if a pilot is already flying in the zone and controllers change over and one sounds or acts like a clown, he doesn't have the luxury of refusing your service, whether he be IFR, VFR, commercial or otherwise.

So would flower, vector801, perusal, Chilli Monster, or Dream Land care to comment in their professional opinion as ATCOs, on whether the approach and Aerodrome controllers successfully coordinated and integrated joining and Circuit traffic?

I quite readily agree that the unfortunate student in this accident lost control of the aircraft under particularly demandig (for him) circumstances.

[bookworm]

Flower, aviator84 - first solo is a confidence booster, plus the licence issuance requirements determine x amount of dual time and y amount of solo time. It's worked in the past, it'll work in the future and has no bearing in this accident.

"No bearing"? Surely this accident should at least open the discussion as to the cost-benefit of student solo, particularly quite early in training. There's little doubt that the lack of experience of the student played a significant role in the accident.

The student solo training regime comes from the days when the most complex instruction a student would get would be a red flare, and pre-dates the situation where training takes place at moderately busy regional airports.

(I went solo in less than 3, licence in 20 - didn't do me any harm)

Of course it didn't do you any harm. You're a biased sample: you lived long enough to get your licence.

[tribekey]

I've not read the case, simply perused a few posts briefly. A few thoughts;

1) Although difficult to prove, it seems that the decision to axe ATCO's getting some flying training (15hours) could contribute to such incidents. An ATCO who had done some training must surely put him/her self in the student pilot's shoes in such situations.

2)Any student solo pilot should be capable of go-arounds and should not expect priority over passenger jet traffic catching them up.Granted the ATCO should allow plenty of space but, for example, an unusually wide turn onto base / final by an inexperienced student pilot may lead to the planned order having to change. Also some instructors seem to prefer the ATCO giving the pilot an orbit downwind whereas others seem to prefer a turn on to final and a possible go-around.

3)The scenario which led to the accident may be becoming more likely as the number of smaller regional airports where g/a used to roam freely is decreasing as low cost carriers multiply and join the mix.Perhaps under such circumstances more training is necessary before students are sent solo.It's certainly the case that some do say 9 or 10 hours in quiete traffic and then go solo just as a couple of 737's pitch up. Perhaps an ATCO with flying experience might be more reluctant to accept such a flight than one without?

4)Perhaps connected; the standard of r/t from g/a has slipped over the past twenty years.The number of times when pilots are not listening out in class d or do not read back mandatory instructions/information and the number of airspace infringements is much higher than used to be the case. I'm not trying to apportion any blame or reason why, simply stating a fact. Is it an indication of a gradual slip in the level of training overall? Just asking for opinions.

5)The ever more rigorous security 'regime' we all live under has already damaged links netween ATCO's and pilots (for example no fam flights as cockpit access restricted). Access to the control tower for instructors sending their students solo now requires 24 hour notice at zzzz because of 'security'. Perhaps this will put many instructors off thus breaking another link.This cannot help mutual understanding in a business where such understanding is vital.


Finally, my sympathies to everyone involved in the above incident and rather than slagging each other off perhaps pilots and ATCO's should get together and act to demand more cross training and lliason.

[flower]

Single spey,
I cannot really say how well this coordination went between ATCOs as seeing something written on paper it can be hard to fully feel how everything was dealt with.
No doubt the ATCOs concerned have gone over the scenario in their heads so many times and questioned their actions to the nth degree. An ATCO who believes they know everything and has nothing to learn is a dangerous one and not a type I have encountered here in the UK. WE can be arrogant buggers but that doesn't mean incapable of seeing faults in ourselves.
The Swiss Cheese model used in TRM and CRM training highlights how it is seldom one event that causes an incident but a variety of events and it is plugging that hole. AAIB who investigated this came up with reasonable and realistic proposal to try to ensure that events such as this are exceptionally rare and all concerned have accepted the findings.

[mm_flynn]

...If you're on a touch and go and remaining in the circuit then it may suit my planning best to bring you to final and then send you around, landing the B737 / A319 / whatever behind you. ...\
This thread fairly frequently goes off on a "send the trainer around rather than the commercial jet" tangent - However, in this case it was a Merridian (which the salesman tells me handles and approaches similar to my Bonanza). So in the particular case, it was a matter of two aircraft that could expect to successfully mix with each other dozens of times a day at uncontrolled fields getting the controllers into a bit of a muddle (it appears primarily due to the late release from previous controller) resulting in the need to send someone around (a simple instruction that either pilot should have been able to execute from their positions).


Unfortunately as we all know, the student pilot didn't configure the aircraft properly for the maneuvor - which might have been partially due to controller instruction not being a simple 'go Around'.


I am consently reminded and surprised about how much harder the rules (and technology?) make controlling in the UK vs. the US - where mixing of much higher volumes of turbine and piston traffic happens on a daily basis in some pretty confined airspace. (Some day I will get a visit in a US tower and TRACON to see how they compare with the UK)

[fireflybob]

As one who has sent quite a few early solos I have every sympathy will all involved in this accident.

That said I feel the primary cause of this accident was the fact that the student pilot did not recognise the signs of an approaching stall, the symptoms of the full stall and failed to recover from the stall. This, in my opinion, points to a lack of training. There may well have been exacerbating circumstances but I do feel that if the student has been comprehensively trained in stall recognition the likelihood of him/her actually stalling the a/c is fairly remote.

Years ago spinning was part of the PPL syllabus but this was withdrawn and replaced with "Slow Flight" awareness. I always used to think when we taught spinning that even if the only thing the student learned from this exercise was "I will never let the aircraft get to that stage" that he/she had learned somethinh useful. That said, there were accidents whilst spin training was being conducted.

When I teach stall recovery I introduce the element of a distraction factor and include in the brief the fact that the time when you might get close to stall by mistake is when you get distracted by, for example, another aircraft in close proximity.

Like the Swiss Cheese model the accident occurs when all the holes line up. Although ATC may have been a factor in this accident the primary cause was an inadvertant stall near the ground.

[Chilli Monster]

care to comment in their professional opinion as ATCOs, on whether the Approach and Aerodrome controllers successfully coordinated and integrated joining and Circuit traffic?

The simple answer to the above is yes. There was nothing wrong with the plan, which would have worked in its original form.

As for what happened after - it's all been said here already, there's no point saying it again.

The student solo training regime comes from the days when the most complex instruction a student would get would be a red flare, and pre-dates the situation where training takes place at moderately busy regional airports.

And? The deciding factor is still the same. We're all forgetting here that the student doesn't go solo when he thinks he's ready, but when the instructor thinks they are. That decision is taken into account knowing full well the traffic and situations the student is likely to encounter. After all - it's his licence on the line, nobody else's. If the place is more complex, the solo stage takes longer to achieve.

If it aint broke - don't change it. And, if done properly, the system aint broke.

[fireflybob]

Yes, Chilli Monster, I am with you on this one.

The flying instructor's job is about informed "risk evaluation". When you send any solo flight but especially early solos you take all factors into account, i.e. the weather, the traffic situation, the student etc. This is the very nature of the beast we are dealing with.

Part of learning to fly is making decisions. On an early solo the instructor makes most of those decisions but the student has also to learn how to make his own decisions and hopefully learn from them.

[Gonzo]

NATS trainee ATCOs who get posted to airports do still get the 15 hours of flying. Of course, not every airport in the UK is a NATS ATSU.

[ComJam]

Flower, no instructor is going to send a student solo until they're absolutely certain he/she is ready to deal with whatever may arise on that circuit(s). Including, engine failures after take-off and go-arounds.

It's a very sad incident that ultimately comes down to the guy handling the aircraft, it's not a controllers job to decide who should and who shouldn't be sent around.

[Chilli Monster]

it's not a controllers job to decide who should and who shouldn't be sent around.

Ok - this one I'm going to need explaining.

[Magp1e]

"after tower gives surprise instruction"

This was the reason for the original post. I couldn't understand why a simple instruction to turn away was beyond a pilots capability. I have now improved my understanding thanks to the "mostly" informative replies.

Apart from confusion over the back track it was a textbook circuit Spey, it wasn't. At least 2 calls had to be repeated after no response, and after the initial go-around instruction he replied "GBB maintain centreline". As the go-around is to the deadside he would have been clear of the inbound. maintaining centreline means that no2 has nowhere to go in the event he breaks off. Therefore the ADC moves him out the way by turning to the North. He had 40 seconds from the initial go-around instruction and 30 seconds from the instruction to turn North before he turns.

[fireflybob]

I have been reflecting on this accident as one does sometimes.

The report does not, I think, comment on the adequacy of the stall warning system in the aircraft. Psychologists have established that the first sense which tends to go when humans (pilots) become overloaded is the sense of hearing. Part of CRM training with the airlines these days highlights this fact since a pilot may become so engrossed in the task that he fails to hear the other pilot making a comment on the operation. (In which case, digressing slightly, said monitoring pilot may have to touch flying pilot to break his pattern and draw attention to what is going on).

Aircraft which have insufficient aerodynamic warning of stall must be fitted with (serviceable) artificial stall warning systems. All the C150/152 type aircraft I have flown are fitted with a "reed" system which will sound as the stalling angle of attack is approached. The efficacy of this system sometimes varies between individual aircraft. Maybe it's time to review the stall warning systems fitted to light aircraft and/or install some other warning system such as a warning light or a louder klaxon of some description.

So in summary my simple questions are:- a) Did the stall warning system operate but (more significantly) b) was the pilot aware that the system was giving a warning?

PS Mods - another thread on this accident running on Private Flying - maybe a case for merging threads?

[flower]

Flower, no instructor is going to send a student solo until they're absolutely certain he/she is ready to deal with whatever may arise on that circuit(s). Including, engine failures after take-off and go-arounds.

It's a very sad incident that ultimately comes down to the guy handling the aircraft, it's not a controllers job to decide who should and who shouldn't be sent around.

Having had to talk too many student pilots around the circuit I would beg to differ and I still say the priorities regarding going solo are wrong, more emphasis on experience and less on going solo would help everyone out it isn't a game about who can do it the quickest , although reading many forums that is exactly what goes on..
However ComJam perhaps you would really care to explain the statement about who decides who goes around and who doesn't, that one doesn't make any sense to me. Yes Pilot initiated go arounds we understand but there are also ATCO initiated go arounds and they don't tend to be given simply because we feel like them they are for reasons of safety .

[vector801]

ComJam

it's not a controllers job to decide who should and who shouldn't be sent around.

Also bit puzzled as to this response..... who's job do you think it is to send aircraft around in a situation when a go around is needed??

[bookworm]

Flower, no instructor is going to send a student solo until they're absolutely certain he/she is ready to deal with whatever may arise on that circuit(s).

How can you possibly write that when this whole thread originates from a fatal accident in which a student was sent solo by an instructor and was unable to deal with what arose?? :confused: The relative responsibilities of student, instructor and ATC are at issue.

[Chilli Monster]

Bookworm:

1) 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing

2) You can't foresee every eventuality

3) This is what happens when SOP's and written orders / memorandum (please refer to the AAIB report to see what I'm referring to) are not adhered to.

You're barking up the wrong tree with this one, with regards to instructor responsibilities I fear.

[bookworm]

1) 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing

2) You can't foresee every eventuality

It is. And, of course you can't. But it's 20:20 hindsight, examined with the proper respect given to those who didn't have the benefit of it, that allows us to learn and improve the way we do things. And that makes it even more important not to use hindsight to attribute blame.

If we don't examine the evidence we have and re-evaluate the procedures after accidents like this, we're not doing a good job of managing safety. That doesn't mean that things have to change every time there's an accident, but it's right to consider the questions raised, and I don't think your dismissal of the relevance of the issue of student solo is warranted.

[Single Spey]

Magp1e,

This was not my post, think it was MikeJ in post #81:


Spey, it wasn't. At least 2 calls had to be repeated after no response, and after the initial go-around instruction he replied "GBB maintain centreline". As the go-around is to the deadside he would have been clear of the inbound. maintaining centreline means that no2 has nowhere to go in the event he breaks off. Therefore the ADC moves him out the way by turning to the North. He had 40 seconds from the initial go-around instruction and 30 seconds from the instruction to turn North before he turns.


However, after the reply "GBB maintain centreline" if that is not what was required why didn't the controller instruct the pilot to go around deadside - ie follow a normal pocedure?

I am concerned that the idea of breaking off traffic on finals on a non-standard routing seems to be accepted as a fairly ordinary situation. It would be interesting to know if the two ATCOs who are both pilots have done this either under instruction or voluntarily whilst flying, or as a matter of routine whilst controlling and therefore created a mindset that this is safe as nothing has gone wrong before. It is well known that standard procedures, including checklists, are developed so that safety is not compromised. Unfortunately it is human nature to take shortcuts and not follow procedures when the end benefit is not immediately apparent. In this way the new 'shortcut' becomes the accepted way of operating, after all, it worked OK like that last time so it must be safe. Inevitably this comes back to bite.

With general reference on this thread to having solo students identify themselves some way on the RT, how about asking controllers who are UT to let pilots know that they are not qualified and operating under supervision? :) There are documented cases in the UK where UT controllers have contributed to incidents and the screen has been unable to react in time. What about a controller who has just qualified and might be operating solo for the first time? How many hours before we as pilots are absolutely certain he/she is ready to deal whatever may arise on his shift?

[Gonzo]

SS,

There is a fundamental difference in the way PPLs and ATCOs are trained to the point where they are let loose on their own.

At all times when ATCOs are under training, there is the instructor sat right next to them, on whose ATCO licence the trainee is operating. I can only speak for Heathrow, but this training period lasts for around a year before the trainee ATCO goes 'solo' and operates on his own licence. Obviously, units which are less complex and less busy will have shorter training periods. And trainees are only put forward for their validation board (SRG-run examination) when a pass in the said examination is as close to guaranteed as possible. The preparation for this would have included many ATC simulator exercises (at units where a sim exists of course) involving emergency after emergency, unusual situation after unusual situation, and many, many scenario discussions and theory questions. Very often the SRG-approved Unit Training Plan will entail familiarisation flights with based airlines, visits to agencies such as the Airfield Fire Service, Police, possibly flights in the local police helicopter etc etc.

I went solo in a 152 at EGNX after four hours.

Slightly different.

[Magp1e]

Spey,

Sorry for the mis ident....I'm still none the wiser though....Yes, it was a non-standard call but why is asking a pilot to climb and turn (the basics of flying a cct) an unusual event? Surely a controller can expect ANY pilot to perform this maneouvre...If not, then should he be solo?

[Max Angle]

How can you possibly write that when this whole thread originates from a fatal accident in which a student was sent solo by an instructor and was unable to deal with what arose??How about the two, presumably fully qualified, ATCOs who between them managed to make an complete and utter horlicks of co-ordinating the approach and landing sequencing of two aircraft at what could only be considered a quiet backwater of an airport?. Hopeless.

[Single Spey]

OK lets see you try that with a 747 at 300ft on final approach - after all you are only

asking a pilot to climb and turn (the basics of flying a cct)

Climbing and turning in approach configuration with full drag flap and low speed at low height is not something that is part of flying a normal circuit. Have you ever tried it - if not I suggest you ask an instructor to take you up and demonstrate - but do it starting off at a safe height. :)

However, executing a go-around by applying full power, controlling the pitch up (in a 152) removing drag flap, stabilising the climb attitude and trimming off the resultant stick forces, accelerating to safe speed to clean up remaining flaps, whilst flying over a cleared area (ie the aerodrome and climbout lane) is the basis of normal circuit flying. Now try adding a turn into this and it is easy to see how the situation can quickly become unsafe.

[flower]

I haven't read the transcript, if placed in a similar situation I would more than likely if i was to have broken off the approach by the student ( I am not saying I would or not I wasn't there) I would have sent them around and asked them to turn as soon as able to the north or south, using the words "when safe"" or "when able to do so" either one of them. That of course may not have helped in this scenario as we are talking about an extremely inexperienced young boy who may have blindly followed ATC instructions rather than sorting his aircraft out first.
We cannot unfortunately know the level of experience unless someone tells us, we can hazard a guess and the way he handled the backtrack instruction would have sent red warning lights flashing before my eyes. When I suggested again on another forum that perhaps a local instruction advising when someone is inexperienced is passed with the book out instructions I was told I was nanny state by PPLs so I guess it is very hard to win.

[CAP493]

We cannot unfortunately know the level of experience unless someone tells us...
A little over 10 years ago AOPA, supported by GATCO and the RAeS suggested to the CAA's SRG that civil flying training schools adopt the military R/T call-sign prefix "Tyro" to indicate to ATC (as it does in the military) that the pilot is a student and thus inexperienced.


SRG was not minded to accept the suggestion ~ clearly, its neddies felt that they knew best. :hmm:

[Whirlygig]

the way he handled the backtrack instruction would have sent red warning lights flashing before my eyes.

Without rereading the transcript, I understood that there was a changeover of controllers between the point of departure and point of approach. The instructor did say when booking out that this was the lad's second solo but it is not clear whether that information was passed on.

A call-sign of "tyro" would plug that particular hole in the cheese.

Cheers

Whirls

[flower]

I have often wondered on the reluctance of accepting TYRO as part of standard RTF. Yes it is one extra word but if aware we are dealing with a low hours student before we issue any instructions it may in the scheme of things save time.

[ShyTorque]

Chilli,
Agree with the slowing down, but probably worth clarifying here that, although IFR, it was actually carrying out a visual approach, not an ILS and was joining right base.

Yes, thank you, the other aircraft actually has not too dissimilar a minimum approach speed to the Cessna ahead; that is why I quoted the information about the joining / following type of aircraft’s performance.

Vector 801, Sorry for the slow response to your post requesting answers from me in particular – a few folk have already responded in my absence on my behalf, by the looks of it. I’ve been away from home.

I found your questions a little strange due to the context you give. Surely we were not discussing jet traffic. I certainly wasn’t doing so and it isn’t pertinent to this accident. The second aircraft was a single turboprop GA aircraft with a minimum final speed only about 10 to 15 kts faster than that of a Cessna 150. Secondly, the accident took place at Southend, not Cardiff.
Nevertheless, YES I would fully expect any student pilot to be fully competent to carry out a go–around by the time of first solo, in fact this is a syllabus pre-requisite, for obvious reasons. However, a normal go-around involves initially climbing straight ahead, then offsetting onto a parallel track the dead side to allow any other aircraft the safe use of runway track, including another aircraft either taking off, or coming in from behind, as per your “number two on finals also going-around” scenario. The next part of the manoeuvre is to fly upwind, maintaining parallel to the runway, normally at circuit height or still climbing to it. The third part is to assess when it is safe to turn crosswind and enter the downwind leg, with other aircraft in sight and with ATC assistance for spacing if necessary. An aircraft going around and still climbing straight and not yet having crossed to the dead side, could be turned early onto the crosswind leg instead, ahead of the next inbound aircraft. If necessary, the second, faster go-around could extend up wind to gain better circuit spacing, allowing the first to continue onto a normal, second circuit, hopefully to land without further ado.
Most students on first or second solo are still flying very much “by numbers” and easily run out of capacity when faced with something unexpected, such as an unusual turn into an unfamiliar position in relation to the airfield. An overloaded student may make the most basic of errors so a standard missed approach is much safer because the student will have practiced it. I find it highly worrying that an ATCO might have no sympathy for, or understanding of, this situation.
Was mine one of the posts you found “shocking and puzzling”? Surely the AAIB report is published in the public domain where it can be discussed so others can learn from it; it appears that most contributors to the thread were doing just that, in reply to the original poster's question.

[chiglet]

SS
OK lets see you try that with a 747 at 300ft on final approach
That is EXACTLY what happend a MAN when a Dash8 Departing 24L lost a donk on t/o.
ALL a/c on finals [including a Virgin B744 at 1.5 mile final were instructed to go around....NON-STANDARD, ie to the South. Result, APC were [extremely] busy for a time, but the Dash staggered round the circuit and landed safely.:ok:
And your point is.........:confused:
watp,iktch

[Single Spey]

Chiglet - confirm please then that the B744 was instructed to 'just take a left turn and fly south' followed 30 seconds later by 'Virgin x just to confirm turn southbound now'? Note - no instruction to go around.

Somehow I seriously doubt that this was the way the incident you refer to was handled. If it was then I would have major concerns about the standard of ATC at MAN.

Incidentally, have you read the AIB report?

[vector801]

ShyTorque
True, this was not a jet following and it doesn't hold water in this situation so I apologise. I was merely trying to illustrate that whatever the reason an ATCO gives a go around instruction and then amends it, he/she has a bloody good reason to do so. Just interested in your view from either side of the mike.
If necessary, the second, faster go-around could extend up wind to gain better circuit spacing, allowing the first to continue onto a normal, second circuit, hopefully to land without further ado.
As someone earlier pointed out. This traffic was IFR on a visual approach. If it went around, on returning to radar it could well ask and be fully entitled to a RIS or even a RAS. The workload of the Radar Controller would probably have gone throught the roof (lots of primary returns around the airfield) to provide the required seperation. I believe possible TRM was already at work here by the TWR controller not wanting the IFR to go around, therefore unneccesarily increasing the workload.

[Spitoon]

A little over 10 years ago AOPA, supported by GATCO and the RAeS suggested to the CAA's SRG that civil flying training schools adopt the military R/T call-sign prefix "Tyro" to indicate to ATC (as it does in the military) that the pilot is a student and thus inexperienced.
Having been involved in such discussions, although not a neddy myself, the difficulty is knowing what to do wih this information. Tyro works well for first solo - but maybe not for the last solo nav ex the day before getting a licence (the following day the pilotwould still be inexperienced by many measures but not using the callsign prefix/suffix). That assumes it would be used for all pre-licence flights - what other criterion should be used? And how much more careful should a controller be when dealing with an inexperienced pilot?

At any airfield where initial flight training/GA goes on the controllers should be alert to a pilot who is possibly getting overloaded. In reality, this applies anywhere because we are all human and we can all get overloaded - pilots and controllers alike. Lots of experience gives us something to fall back on but it is no guarantee that we'll not 'loose the picture'. If there are signs that a pilot is having some difficulty, I would expect a controller to pick up on those signs and either offer help or modify the controlling techniques - this applies anywhere (although what the controller might do will differ greatly depending on the circumstances). Just as I would expect a controller who is showing signs of getting overloaded to be helped to manage the situation. I've no doubt I'll be accused of living in cloud-cuckoo land, but that's what I would expect and it's what I have seen on what I would describe as good ATC watches/units. Not wishing to get emotive here but livesare at stake as this accident shows. To sum up the last few lines, 'Tyro' might help in a small number of instances but its value will soon be lost - far better that controllers have a better appreciation of what its like to fly an aeroplane (and v.v.).

Which leads on to another point. On first reading of this thread i was tempted to bemoan the fact that controllers no longer get much flying training and suggest that this played a part in the events. But then I read in the report that both of the controllers on duty had PPLs. It's hard to work out why they did not pick up on the clues that were so obviously there in retrospect but clearly more flying training is not the answer! Likewise, it's easy to be wise in retrospect but the report notes that the SATCO, working in the support position, noticed that the aircraft was low and slow - but the report does not suggest that he/she did anything as a result of this observation.

Ultimately the tradgedy is that someone died before we start analysing how it could happen. The original post sought views on the AAIB report's recommendations. The report, which is surprisingly well presented in comparison to many others that deal with ATC involvement, sadly falls into the same trap as many others in its recommendations.

One recommendation is that 'It is recommended that London Southend Airport includes information relating to the notification and handling of flights by inexperienced solo pilots in its Part 2 of the Manual of Air Traffic Services. - that's good, so it won't happen again at Southend. Although we will have to guess just what the AAIB hopes the 'information relating to the notification and handling of flights by inexperienced solo pilots' will achieve, let's hope that the stuff they put into the MATS Part 2 is more than 'try not to do anything non-standard to inexperienced pilots'. But why is this not a recommendation addressed to all airports to review the usefulness of notifying 'solo traineee pilots' when booking out or whatever and to review the guidance/training that is provided to controllers for handling such flights? And if AAIB can't make that recommendation directly to the airports, how about through the CAA?

I've already expressed my views about appending Tyro or student to the callsign - but I'm a bit dubious about the advice that AAIB would like to see put in the MATS Part 1. That should be common sense......surely?

But the one I really have trouble with is 'The Civil Aviation Authority should amend MATS Part 1 so that, with the exception of issuing instructions to go?around, controllers shall not issue instructions that would require an aircraft in the final stages of approaching to land to deviate from its expected flight path unless exceptional overriding safety considerations apply.'. Quite apart from the fact that this accident resulted from what was essentially, if badly communicated, instruction to go around, this limits many controlling techniques which, if used sensibly, can make life easier for pilots and controllers alike. How far out should this rule apply? Does it stop me instructing an aircraft to make a long way round turn onto final or, heavens to Betsy, an orbit on final approach? Even this latter I've used on many occasions, with the agreement of the pilot - admitedly only with pilots that are obviously experienced, and never with a pilot that is known to be inexperienced or shows signs of being unsure of how to follow instructions or slow to respond to the RTF. But do we really need yet another knee-jerk reaction that takes away controlling techniques that are perfectly sound and safe when used correctly? Maybe the best approach would be to include some of this TRM and awareness stuff in TRUCE.

[Magp1e]

Why the reference to 747?...Why don't I refer to a go around at EGLL with heliroute traffic and wx avoidance on the other RW...it's irrelivant but if you haven't tried it.....

However, executing a go-around by applying full power, controlling the pitch up (in a 152) removing drag flap, stabilising the climb attitude and trimming off the resultant stick forces, accelerating to safe speed to clean up remaining flaps, whilst flying over a cleared area (ie the aerodrome and climbout lane) is the basis of normal circuit flying. Now try adding a turn into this and it is easy to see how the situation can quickly become unsafe.

Exactly my point! If the pilot is unready for this, why is he going solo?

[aviator84]

Yup true, "If the pilot is unready for this, why is he going solo?" i know air law is done prior to solo but perhaps some multiple choice flight proficiency exam should be introduced on the day of solo to cover all aspects and eventualities that may occur on the flight?av84

[Dream Land]

A little over 10 years ago AOPA, supported by GATCO and the RAeS suggested to the CAA's SRG that civil flying training schools adopt the military R/T call-sign prefix "Tyro" to indicate to ATC (as it does in the military) that the pilot is a student and thus inexperienced I think it's safe to say that most controllers already know who the inexperienced pilots are, just by the way they use the r/t and the equipment flown, they learn to have a certain suspicion about wayward pilots. I think in the US we were required to identify ourselves as a student pilot.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Vector801

If it went around, on returning to radar it could well ask and be fully entitled to a RIS or even a RAS.

Has absolutely no bearing on this incident, but there is no full entitlement to either in any situation you can ever dream of. The radar parts of ATSOCA are always subject to various conditions, such as controller workload, weather, clutter, etc.

[89 steps to heaven]

At the airport where I work, we have a good system with the training organisations. On taxi, POB is advised. 1 + 1 means 1 student, 1 instructor. POB 1 , student only. They all advise us of first or second solo circuits. When possible, I try not to give the training flight anything non-standard for the first circuit of a sortie, allows trainee to get the ducks all in a row.

We also invite them to bring their new students over for a visit. Things I like to stress is that standard phrases help, but if you cannot remember them, use plain language. If we give you an instruction that you do not understand or cannot safely comply with, talk to us. It is better to sound like a goose than have it proven.

Sending first aircraft around is not common, but sometimes with all the best will in the world to let the first on final to use the runway, it can be the best / safest option.

[Single Spey]

magp1e

I see from your profile that you are an ATCO -an it worries me that you seem to miss the fundamental point that the pilot was not instructed to go around - which he would have been trained for - but was instructed to 'just turn north' and then 'turn north now' - neither instruction of which constitutes standard practice for an aircraft to execute a missed approach or go around.

As I said, if you seem to think that this is something any pilot can do as it is part of a normal cct, then as an ATCO why don't you try asking a 747 to do this ('just turn north' and then 'turn north now') at 300 ft on final approach and see what response you get.

[CAP493]

I think it's safe to say that most controllers already know who the inexperienced pilots are...

Alas, I wish this was true, but 40 years in ATC, civil and military, has taught me it's not!

The only indication that ATC will have is the pilot's R/T delivery and how he/she sounds. I've known student pilots who sound proficient and extremely confident on the R/T - but this is no indication as to their experience and ability. Equally, I've known qualified PPLs who sound as though they're on a 'first solo' and who remain nervous about using the R/T for months, sometimes years after they have qualified.

Apart from local ATC arrangements with based flying schools & clubs such as have been described, the only sure-fire way of ensuring that ATC knows that a pilot is a solo student and so has probably limited experience and ability, is by the use of an R/T call-sign prefix.

This is especially valuable for LARS units where ATC can be providing a service to a multitude of transit aircraft, many of which will be unknown to the controller(s) involved.

The procedures that have been implemented at Southend following this fatal accident are fine - provided that ATC knows the pilot is a student PPL - which will work for the based organisations, and for any visiting aircraft that has been booked in for a 'qualifying cross-country'; but not for any visiting flight where the pilot's status is not communicated to ATC.

What amazes me is that there should be any debate in the civil world about adopting the "Tyro" call-sign prefix, which is a tried and tested system that works extremely well in military flying. Surely, to not do so is just a no-brainer...? :ugh:

[flower]

CAP493 has it,
whilst we can identify some inexperienced pilots we can't pick them all up. One 16 year old who did his first solo the day after his 16th birthday was so competent on the RT he could have been flying for BA, then I have had guys with years of experience who trip over words which makes them appear incompetent whereas they are simply not good on the radio.
We were always supposed to be informed prior to them speaking to us of QXCs but we weren't and then you would be working traffic thinking this guy is useless only to get a call later on asking how so and so did as they were on their QXC, if we had known it can explain a lot. Whilst in the majority of cases it wont change how you control in some cases it will.
Lets face it most units wont put up a first solo if they know they are going to have to orbit, so why do we expect them to be able to handle flying within a complex traffic environment on a second solo?
As airports which previously were quiet backwaters who no longer are still handle GA for flight training this does need to be tackled, I will bang on about it but someone needs to be far more experienced in all things flying before they do their solo, stop thinking of it as important at an early stage , not driving solo or controlling solo doesn't affect the confidence of drivers or ATCOs so why would it be different for pilots ?
And lets have more communication between ATC and flying schools regarding the pilots experience level , Tyro is the obvious word to use.

[throw a dyce]

At Aberdeen we have a system of codes on the strips to show what kind of pilot is flying in club aircraft.
Green-Instructor,
Amber-Qualified PPL
Red-Student solo.
This system has worked well for many years.Also the CFI asked ATC not to issue any instructions to orbit,or slow low turns.If we have to sent Cessnas around,then straight ahead until the aircraft is well up and climbing.
It's a long time since I flew,but when I regained my PPL,I had to do 2 hours of stall-spin awareness.Some of the most valuable flying going.I wonder if this poor kid had this before his solo circuits.
I have had a similar situation in an old 150,which had 40 flap.Told to go around from 200 ft,as a 757 was slow rolling.I had 40flap down,and I said to the Tower controller who was my Watch Manager that I'm happy to do a land after the departing.No he told me to go around.What a handful trying to get it to 10 flap.Then he told me to break left:mad:The old Cessna did not have a flap detent,just a toggle and watch the flap running on the pillar.There you all the same situation that the kid faced.He perhaps forgot to put the carb heat in as well,so he would have no chance of climbing.
Lessons,
Well perhaps a start is that you could send Cessna around earlier,and give them a chance to get out the vertically.If its a late go-around then avoid any instruction that involves turning low in the go-around.

[Magp1e]

Single Spey

There is a fundamental point being missed here. If I give an instruction to an ac to turn left onto North now (even if he is finals at 300ft), I expect him to configure the ac before commencing the maneouvre (ANC), that is taken into account when I give the instuction...

He was instucted to go-around, but gave the wrong response "maintain centreline", hence the ammended instruction.

Please don't get me wrong. He was put in a very difficult position, and the instruction would have been a "surprise" to anyone. The point is that your 747 pilot would have dealt with it, the poor boy couldn't, which returns us to the question, was he allowed to go solo too early ?

[callyoushortly]

At Aberdeen we have a system of codes on the strips to show what kind of pilot is flying in club aircraft.
Green-Instructor,
Amber-Qualified PPL
Red-Student solo.
This system has worked well for many years

Same at Edinburgh minus the amber.
Simple system, indicated on bookout, works a treat and no extra R/T time :D

[flower]

As indicated though whilst a local solution is fine in the circuit it doesn't help when they leave the circuit and go cross country.
A national system alleviates that issue. I am all for flying clubs on booking out advising the experience but as a unit where we get many training cross country flights and qualifying ones we often haven't a clue they are trainee pilots.

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

Way down south of the green and greasy, when a student was sent on his first solo, his instructor usually kept a watchful eye on the circuit. This was normally done either from the tower or sitting in another aircraft on the ground, radios ON.
The point being that the student's instructor, not necessarily the man who had checked him out for the first solo flight, was always within eyeball range and communication for the duration of this first great event. Most made sure that the student was afforded the same watchful protection for the first couple of circuits of the first consolidation period thereafter, or asked a fellow instructor to do the honours.
This was not difficult to achieve even at quite large and busy airports and, whilst giving reassurance to the student, was much appreciated by the ATCOs, whose brief perhaps does not really include the responsibility of looking after someone else's pupil.:)

[ShyTorque]

Please don't get me wrong. He was put in a very difficult position, and the instruction would have been a "surprise" to anyone. The point is that your 747 pilot would have dealt with it, the poor boy couldn't, which returns us to the question, was he allowed to go solo too early ?

Magp1e,
Quite obviously, the average 747 captain would have flown many thousands of hours and if he couldn't cope with an ATC instruction he would have known from experience gleaned and would have told ATC so. If not he had no business sitting in either seat! The point is, would a 747 pilot ever be asked to complete this type of manouevre for another, faster, aircraft on finals, behind? If not, what's the difference? I very much doubt it; the second aircraft would have been given speed control, or given extra track miles, or a combination of both, which could also have been applied in the case of this accident.

As I previously stated, the average student on a second solo has very little spare capacity to cope with the unexpected and can easily get distracted from the basics of handling the aircraft. (Ask the average 747 captain, who would have once been in that position himself)! It's for this reason that the RAF has, for many years, had a Duty Instructor in the tower at flying training bases, to act as an ATC liaison and to be immediately on hand to advise solo students if necessary.

It appears that this young chap was sent solo in accordance with the normal CAA PPL syllabus and was reportedly a good student, so the answer to your question "was he allowed to go solo too early?" would appear to be NO.

[bookworm]

If I give an instruction to an ac to turn left onto North now (even if he is finals at 300ft), I expect him to configure the ac before commencing the maneouvre (ANC), that is taken into account when I give the instuction...

Perhaps he tried to. About 30 seconds passed between the original go-around instruction and the turn to the north, which seems to have been made after the controller's confirmation of the instruction.

He was instucted to go-around, but gave the wrong response "maintain centreline", hence the ammended instruction.

I don't think you can draw any such conclusion. The amended instruction was issued in an attempt to resolve the conflict, not because the readback was incomplete (which it was, but that's hardly surprising since the original phraseology was highly non-standard).

[Single Spey]

magp1e
He was instructed to go-around, but gave the wrong response "maintain centreline", hence the amended instruction.


Sorry but you are wrong - he reported number one (as advised by ATC) and was instructed to

"golf bravo bravo roger and er maintain runway centreline but go around er circuit height one thousand feet there's fast traffic behind to land"

which was amended to

"er golf bravo bravo disregard that just take a left turn and fly north I'll you back in very shortly".

Just what does 'I'll call you back in very shortly' mean? And having been told to disregard the 'circuit height one thousand feet' what heightt was he expected to maintain? The height he was at when he turned? So he is now turning off the final approach, away from the airfield at a critical stage of flight, at a strange height, over a built up area with no clear idea what to expect next. Should he climb against the apparent instruction to just turn north? How long is 'very shortly'? Where will he be expected to re-intercept the glidepath and at what range from the airfield? It is for precisely these reasons that standard procedures are used with standard phraseology so that pilots (and controllers) instinctively know what the situation is and what is expected of them.

[Capt Pit Bull]

As a related aside, take a shufti at P12 of this weeks flight.

See any similarities?

pb

[Magp1e]

Shy Torque - Bookworm -Single spey

I take on board your points. I agree the RT used was non-standard and could have confused the pilot.

But...What you are agreeing through your statements is that he was incapable of responding to the situation in a safe manner. So should he have been solo?

Yes I have seen a 747 go around from 300ft albeit for a different reason than there was landing traffic behind, tho' I don't know why we keep bringing up the 747!

[Dream Land]

The point is, would a 747 pilot ever be asked to complete this type of manouevre for another, faster, aircraft on finals, behind? The point IS, it wasn't a 747, that is point you are missing, the controller made a decision to send a trainer around so a non-training aircraft could land, might not have went down like that had the controller been informed of the students experience level, the controller did nothing abnormal IMO.

[flower]

Just to throw another squib in.
ATCOs have two masters, one the CAA and the rules they enforce and two the airport authority.
The airport authority determine who will operate at their airport and they will also determine priorities regarding training flights.
If the airport make it clear that trainers have the lowest priority then so be it.
Provided flight safety is not compromised we comply with what the airport authority dictates when it comes to training priorities.

[ShyTorque]

Dreamland, actually, no it's not a point I'm missing. Read back a couple of my earlier posts, please. My reference to a B747 was only because someone else referred to that type in a response to me.

Again, a normal "go-around" situation would have been forseen (again, it's in the syllabus) and every student trains for that. Unfortunately, he wasn't given a "go-around" in the normal sense, either in the terminology used or the actual directions given.

[Single Spey]

Dreamland
the controller made a decision to send a trainer around so a non-training aircraft could land, might not have went down like that had the controller been informed of the students experience level, the controller did nothing abnormal IMO.


I think that you will find that the controller did not make a decision to send the trainer around but gave the trainer a vector from final approach away from the aerodrome. I really hope that this is abnormal.

Incidentally, does anyone know if the Southend Aerodrome controller has access to a surveillance display of any sort?

[DFC]

One point which I believe was very much overlooked in this whole accident was the matter of ATC not being willing to turn the long way round because of unknown aircraft.
Once again we have an IFR flght operating in Class G airspace getting a higher level of separation than is required in class D or E controlled airspace.
Would the same situation have occurred if Southend had Class E airspace since all other IMC flights in that area would be known to ATS and all unknown aircraft would be VFR and thus leaving ATS with no requirement to separate and with no RAS available in class E we would not have as one poster commented a high workload in the event of a missed approach by the IFR flight.
The other point little commented on in the report is the fact that once electing to complete a visual approach and being given traffic information on a preceeding VFR flight it is the responsibility of the NUmber 2 pilot to arrange the appropriate separation.........and if they muck it up go around. Not to penalise the number one aircraft for poor positioning by ther number 2.
Where I come from solo students must be established on final no lower than 400ft AGL and must not turn croswind below 400ft AGL or when in the clean climb configuration whichever is later. They are well trained in missed approaches which must be straight ahead until above 400ft AGL and clean.

In simple terns a missed approach involves a climb straight ahead while the aircraft is reconfigured to the clean climb configuration at the appropriate speed. Only after that is completed can any tought of turning be made.

If ATC request something different, they are politely told negative. Students at qualification are reminded that they can at any time tell ATC negative and it is up to ATC to come up with an alternative safe clearance that can be accepted.
They are also told to just because ATC say something silly they should not assume it is a student or low time ATCO ;)
Regards,
DFC

[chiglet]

Single Spey
Chiglet - confirm please then that the B744 was instructed to 'just take a left turn and fly south' followed 30 seconds later by 'Virgin x just to confirm turn southbound now'? Note - no instruction to go around.

Somehow I seriously doubt that this was the way the incident you refer to was handled. If it was then I would have major concerns about the standard of ATC at MAN.

Incidentally, have you read the AIB report?

Standard G/A at Manch is s/a then Right turn..[can't remember headings or altitude] I was the Air Assistant when the Dash lost the donk. After the Mayday call, the Dash was given any runway, any turn. Air 2 [24L] Departures told Air1 24R Arrivals what was happening. The Virgin 744 was told to execute a non-standard go around and make his heading 180 degrees, as was the a/c behind and no 3. The Dash flew a right hand circuit and landed on 24R
That is to the best of my knowledge what happened that day. If you think that makes Manch ATC a poor standard, then that is your perogative.
If you mean the AAIB report on the Dash, no I haven't, but I contributed some photos for it
waip,iktch

[frozenboxhauler]

Aviator 84, IMHO, if your instructor says that you are ready to solo, then you're ready. I taught primary instruction for over 1,500 hours and never killed a student. Getting hired by (your favorite airline name here) would be a bit of a problem if you had had your licenses revoked for incompetence.
If you're not willing to solo when the opportunity is given to you, maybe you should take up a new hobby. Wishing you many years of blue skys and tail winds.
fbh

[fireflybob]

Yup true, "If the pilot is unready for this, why is he going solo?" i know air law is done prior to solo but perhaps some multiple choice flight proficiency exam should be introduced on the day of solo to cover all aspects and eventualities that may occur on the flight?av84

Well let's think about this for a minute. I have never really understood the reason why the student has to pass air law before solo yet, because of the CAA interpretation of Rule 5, it has become almost impossible to teach Engine Failure After Take Off and comply with Rule 5 yet EFATO is (quite rightly in my opinion) in the PPL Syllabus.

I ask you which is more important, having a knowledge of the Quadrantal Rule or having the actual skills to deal with an EFATO and walk away from the wreckage?

I repeat what I have said earlier on this thread that this accident was caused by the student failing to recognise the signs of an approaching stall, the symptoms of the full stall and failing to recover. Yes there were extenuating circumstances and maybe he inadvertantly put the aircraft in a situation where it was about to stall BUT he failed to recover at the incipient stage (assuming the stall warner was operating correctly). As an instructor of some experience I find this hard to say but this points to a lack of training in stall recognition and recovery.

[dscartwright]

As with many incidents (and "nearly incidents") it seems to me that this incident was one of those where no single occurrence was the underlying cause, but perhaps one single thing being done differently may have avoided "the straw breaking the camel's back".
Perhaps the controller ought to have realised the existence of the second aircraft earlier, so that the student could have been instructed to orbit whilst on the downwind or base leg - something that became second nature to me when learning at a small-but-international airport, as it's quite busy. Similarly, perhaps a more conventional go-around could have been issued - again, something that I did plenty of times as a student and with which your average student should have no problem.
On the tuition side, perhaps the student could have been held back a little from his first solo - but given the apparent experience of the instructor, there's nothing to suggest that the decision to send the student solo was the wrong one, and of course the only (clearly impossible) way to avoid the obvious added risk of sending a student solo is never to send him or her solo. Perhaps more stall/spin awareness or slow flying could have been covered, but even if this had been the case there's a world of difference between your instructor "surprising" you with a wing-drop into a spiral dive at 3500' and the circumstances in which this aircraft entered a spin. (And I've sort-of been there. On my QXC I inadvertently entered cloud, got disoriented and diverged well and truly from straight-and-level; thankfully the time my instructor had spent showing me IMC paid off, but my goodness, it was a whole lot more stressful than doing it "for fun").
On the communication side, perhaps there could have been better communication between the club/instructor and ATC with regard to the pilot's experience. For instance, at the airfield where I learned to fly you always give ATC a bell to book out, and in my early solo hours, my instructor would generally let ATC know my level of (in)experience whilst on the phone. In this case the fact that the pilot was in a club aircraft on a circuit-bashing exercise may have implied to ATC that he was relatively inexperienced, but of course ATC couldn't be expected to assume that (it could equally be a 200-hour guy filling in the last hour for his experience-based SEP renewal, for instance).
What we have, then, is a series of relatively small problems (deviations from correct RT phraseology, a lack of timely spin awareness, etc, etc) which, unfortunately, led to an incident whose magnitude, it could be argued, was out of all proportion to the events leading up to it.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and sadly we can't change what happened. However, sad though this incident was, I am confident that generally speaking procedures, both formal and informal, will improve as a result, and the skies will become safer to some degree.
David C

[YesTAM]

I was taught to go around well before my first solo, and my instructor sprung them on me at least three times. I also did all of the flying to and from the training area once "effects of controls" had been taught. I recall going around on my third solo of my own volition because things were busy and I didn't have a clearance by about 100'.

[Nubboy]

What a sorry tale.

Recognizing several names on this thread, and fully acknowledging the VAST amount of experience behind them (some inherited in the genes?), I feel most strongly that whilst the stall spin was the event that directly caused the crash, the position he was put in by those awful go around instructions where the key. They where the ones that overloaded him.

For those of us with experience it would have been a simple matter. For someone at that level it was obviously totally beyond his capabilities. A tragic and needless waste.

[n5296s]

I was very frustrated when learning because my instructor didn't let me solo until 30 hrs. In retrospect, he was a very wise man (still is actually). He wanted to be sure I could face anything that might reasonably happen, including diverting to another airport (in case the runway was blocked or closed). Maybe in the UK there's a lot of pressure due to the cost of flying to let people solo early, I don't know. He also taught me to say "unable". Luckily. I was in a similar situation to this unfortunate pilot - as I was on final in a 172 there was a Lear coming up fast behind me. Tower (at Hayward, CA) told me to "make it a touch and go" but I'd been instructed to make it a full stop. So I said "unable". I cleared the runway with the Lear practically over the threshold. Everyone was happy, except my poor instructor who had melted into a pool of sweat over the whole incident.

I've been asked to do all sorts of wacky things in the pattern and on the approach - 360s from just about everywhere, return to downwind, short approaches, you name it. I think though that it's a bad idea to add to the stress and unfamiliarity that an early-solo pilot feels by asking them to do these things.

My home airport (Palo Alto) has had exactly one fatal, which was a newly-minted PPL who was asked to make an early crosswind. He stalled, spun, and killed himself and his girlfriend.

I think though that it would be a revelation for some of the contributing ATCOs to spend time at a busy GA+commercial airport in the US. Statements like "it's my airspace and if you want to mix it with the jets in your 172 then you'll have a tough time" (paraphrasing but that was the gist) wouldn't go down too well, at, say, San Jose or Oakland. Even at LAX I've been slotted in among the jets in my 182 with no fuss or trouble for anyone. Or maybe they should try Livermore on a Saturday morning, everything from ultralights to warbirds to jets, with runways busy and a dozen aircraft on frequency. I'm sure Southend is a pretty sleepy backwater compared with any of these places, or indeed Palo Alto which averages one movement every 20 seconds at busy times.

n5296s

[ChrisVJ]

Far too many people on here fighting their corner instead of using their brains to suggest (just suggest,) ideas for amelioration. They would not all be good suggestions but one or two might come to something.

1. Perhaps a good part of the answer is already on here. The student is paying for instruction for the whole hour? Then maybe the instructor for early solos SHOULD attend in the tower to guard his students flight path and if necessary proffer the calming voice. (Mine did, but I did not know till after.)
2. We might recognise that student's behaviour during practice go arounds may not translate into clear thinking during an actual solo go around. Reaction during initial solos may be entirely different and it is really important not to deviate from practiced manoevres in these situations.
3. The removal of the PPL training for ATCOs in training seems incredibly shortsighted. There can be no better way to understand the environment, and in particlur how it feels for a student, that being one. Same thing for PPLs attending in the tower. Yes, I know it may be a distraction, but somehow those guys seemed to manage before.
When I was training at Kidlington there was a whole bunch of ATCOs doing their PPLs. We all used to wander up to the tower and watch the controllers and one of the ATCOs even took me to the LHR tower (they were encouraged to visit all the towers they could, including such as LHR,) ) I did not go on to a CPL but if I had I would have had some understanding of how airpspace worked and the incredible pressure in the tower. I think a few hours a year watching in various towers should be mandatory for, say, first officers and maybe even captains. OK it is creeping here a bit but I think it is relevant.)

[Gonzo]

As I have said before in this thread, NATS ATCOs who have been posted to work at an airfield, or have done the Approach Radar rating and will will at a Terminal Control unit, do still get the 15 hours of flying.

Those who do the area course now spend an extended visit to the BA simulator facility at Cranebank, learning how multi engine jet a/c fly.

Some pilots on this thread appear to think that all UK ATCOs used to receive PPL training. Incorrect, only those employed by NATS. The majority of ATCOs who work at non-NATS units will not have done any PPL training as part of their ATCO training, unless they are ex-NATS.

[cwatters]

I've read the report and most of the comments here.

So we have an in experienced pilot at just about the most stressful point when he's thrown a curve ball. Is it possible he mentally handed back control to the higher authority? I'm sure there are good examples of this happening to experienced pilots in "Aftermath".

I recall an incident in the USA where a large plane went down after running out of fuel. At several points the experienced pilot accepted instructions from ATC that he should have rejected given his fuel situation. He felt that he was being "taken care of" and that "ATC knew best".

In this case the pilot had already been corrected (on the ground) so may have felt more inclined to follow instructions carefully in future. Later he's told to go around and might have followed that instruction perfectly when he was told, in effect, not to carry out the go around proceedure but to turn and fly north instead.

Please note that I'm not pointing the finger at ATC or the pilot here.

[stickandrudderman]

I haven't read every single post 'cause it would take me all day!
However, from reading one of the first posts it seems that there was a change of controller after the student was "sent solo", and the second controller was not informed of the situation.
Surely it is this alone that started a tragic chain of events?
I can't believe for one minute that anyone would seek to deliberately complicate a first solo in this way, and am sure that if the second controller had been made aware of the student's status, he would never have done so.
A first solo is ALWAYS going to involve a high workload for the student. It doesn't matter whether he's done 10 hrs or 100 hrs.
Forgive me if this has already been said somewhere in the middle!

[bottom rung]

Stickandru....etc etc
Read all the posts if you must point a finger. It was his second solo. Not that it makes much difference, the poor lad still came a cropper. The end result is that there are a few factors which all contributed to varying degrees which resulted in this incident. Each one, in isolation, would not have had such an unfortunate result.... its just that on this occasion the holes in the cheese all lined up. Instead of blaming any individual, we should learn from this and perhaps amend our practises to try to prevent this happening again. As an atco (and ppl), I've learned something. I certainly hope low hour students and also instructors have as well.

[ComJam]

Oops sorry, that was a bit ambiguous. What i meant was ATC should be able to send anyone around without worrying about the capabilities of the pilot.

And i still don't agree that there's a "race" to go solo, i never sent a student solo who wasn't absolutely ready for it, whether it was at 6 or 25 hours.

[Foxy Loxy]

Well said, bottom rung.
I worked at Southend at the time of the accident, though not on watch that day. I knew everyone involved well. It also happened to have been me who was controlling the lad's first solo.
Needless to say, everyone there was deeply affected. It has been very hard for me not to react to some of the posts on here, given that I have a deeper knowledge of events and personalities than those given in the report, particularly as many of the comments have been so wide of the mark.
The bottom line is, there are elements that EVERYONE can learn from, and I sincerely hope we do.
Please stop pointing fingers. Trust me, those involved have done some serious thinking. No-one can blame them more than they have already to themselves.
Time to leave it alone.
Foxy

[ShyTorque]

Foxy, I feel very sad indeed for everyone involved in this tragedy.
However, we must not forget the factors that led up to the accident lest they recur.

[Foxy Loxy]

I don't suggest for one second that anyone should.

Foxy

[coolbeans]

Foxy, I feel very sad indeed for everyone involved in this tragedy.
However, we must not forget the factors that led up to the accident lest they recur.

I don't think anyone is going to forget the factors involved, here. From the ATC side we are reminded of the necessity of standard RT, maneuvers on final approach and understanding the limitations of low hour pilots. Pilots are reminded of the risks involved in not cleaning an aicraft up for a go around.

We've all taken these lessons to heart, unfortunately this thread seems to have degenerated an us and them pissing match, all of the pertinent points have been examined and debated for the last 6 pages of this thread and a few others on the board, I dont think we can add anything new to it

As Foxy says lets take away the parts that will make us better, safer controllers and pilots and let this discusion drop.

[Single Spey]

coolbeans

As Foxy says lets take away the parts that will make us better, safer controllers and pilots and let this discusion drop.


Wholeheartedly agree. So in addition to the AAIB was there an ATC investigation by SRG/CAA and was an ATSIN issued reminding controllers of the circumstances and all the other good points that you mention? What other methods for passing on the lessons to the ATC community have been used? I am not aware of publicity of the ATC aspects of this accident being publicised by GATCO in their Transmit magazine either.

Foxy Loxy

As you worked at Southend would you be able to answer my previous question:

Incidentally, does anyone know if the Southend Aerodrome controller has access to a surveillance display of any sort?

[Under_the_radar]

Single Spey

Having read your numerous posts in this thread I would be interested to know where you undertook your ATC training and how long you have been captaining 747's for?

Get the distinct feeling that where ATC is concerned you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder, if this is wrong and you are just genereally like that, I stand corrected.

[coolbeans]

Wholeheartedly agree. So in addition to the AAIB was there an ATC investigation by SRG/CAA and was an ATSIN issued reminding controllers of the circumstances and all the other good points that you mention? What other methods for passing on the lessons to the ATC community have been used? I am not aware of publicity of the ATC aspects of this accident being publicised by GATCO in their Transmit magazine either.
There quite possibly has been, I'm aware at my unit, the incident has been discussed and parallels drawn with what could happen with our operation, the report has also been posted for ATCO's to read, I'm not sure how much more hand holding controllers need to make sure they take the lessons away with them.
I'm certain that an ongoing pi$$ing contest on Pprune isn't going to help anyone though, the debate has been and gone

[Single Spey]

Under_the_radar:


Having read your numerous posts in this thread I would be interested to know where you undertook your ATC training and how long you have been captaining 747's for?

Get the distinct feeling that where ATC is concerned you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder, if this is wrong and you are just genereally like that, I stand corrected


I have never claimed to have undertaken any ATC training, nor that I am a captain of a 747.

But then again I have never claimed NOT to have undertaken any ATC training, nor that I am NOT a captain of a 747. ;)

Not sure either about the chip on the shoulder - maybe I am just like that.....:)

[Foxy Loxy]

We can all learn from what happened. Leave this alone now. Please.

Foxy

[PPRuNe Radar]

It's going round in circles now and I think everything has been said.

Thread closed.