Duplication of QNH on Clearance callup

[The Sandman]

With the already congested status of all frequencies, in particular clearance del., might I ask why the need has emerged for the seemingly redundant callout of QNH in addition to the ATIS identifier most recently monitored. I thought that copying the ATIS, and confirming it on initial callup, conveyed that the requisite info, ie wx status - and QNH - had been received?

Seems that rather than making radio calls more succinct and clearing airspace for denser communications, we seem to be on a trend to make them more verbose and redundant.

[stator vane]

and can you imagine the havoc if you were to taxi and takeoff if the QNH has changed one millibar since you got the last ATIS?

also might be along the same lines that you hardly ever fly the assigned departure or arrival.

[Brakes to Park]

From CAP 413. It's not terribly clear but might provide a clue:

1.3 Departure Information and Engine Starting Procedures
1.3.1 Where no ATIS is provided the pilot may ask for current aerodrome information before
requesting start up.
1.3.2 Requests to start engines are normally made to facilitate ATC planning and to avoid
excessive fuel wastage by aircraft delayed on the ground. At certain aerodromes,
along with the request, the pilot will state the location of the aircraft and acknowledge
receipt of the departure ATIS broadcast identifying letter together with the QNH.

[hold at SATAN]

Sandman, unfortunately the correct readback of the QNH is something that we need to do, least not because pilots don't always have the latest ATIS and the QNH could have changed since. Also, it's the law! :p Besides, clearance delivery (or Ground Movement Planner as we are offficially titled) is usually the quieter/less complicated position, where aircraft are not moving/liable to hit each other, etc. and we can happily repeat instructions, requests etc over and over and over again if required.
At Heathrow, when the QNH changes, we broadcast it on all frequencies without the need for readback. It's only in delivery that we check you have recieved the QNH, when issuing clearances/start up, as you may not be monitoring the frequency at the time, whereas on the other 4 frequencies we expect you to be listening out. Indeed, there is a box on our "flight data entry" (electronic flight strip) which serves the purpose of recording the QNH you have reported to us.
I know 1mb is about 30 feet, but what if the QNH was copied wrongly (heaven forfend) from the ATIS? or there had been 2 changes (could happen) since you recieved the ATIS. And let's not forget how tightly packed aircraft are, especially in the skies above our fair capital city (and my house) - we don't really want less than 1000 feet vertical separation and TCAS etc going off (sorry for the tabloid style sensationlism)

[SmokeAndNoise]

..."descend to altitude 4000 feet QNH 1012 millibars and turn right heading 340 degrees" on the busy london freqs?? And then you get cleared for an ILS approach but that doesn't necessarily mean you can descend with the G/P like it does in the rest of the world.. :8 Of course like everything else in life it depends on the situation. If the frequency is not congested it doesn't bother me confirming and double confirming QNH's etc. ;)

[CamelhAir]

."descend to altitude 4000 feet QNH 1012 millibars and turn right heading 340 degrees

"Altitude" is inserted between the "to" and the "4,000" to reinforce that you are being cleared to 4,000ft, not "two four thousand" (i.e. 24,000).
"Millibars" is so our Yankee friends don't set inches of mercury. I.e. QNH nine nine two (MB) is easily mistaken for 29.92 (inches).
"340 degrees reinforces that the 340 mentioned is not a FL.

There's method in the madness!

[Airbubba]

And then you get cleared for an ILS approach but that doesn't necessarily mean you can descend with the G/P like it does in the rest of the world..

Yep, the UK definitely could use some work on R/T procedures. :) I usually seem to get a stealth implied clearance like "Report established on the localizer", followed by "Continue on the glide" The rest of the world seems to be more specific e.g. "Cleared to intercept the localizer, maintain 3000 feet" then "Cleared ILS Runway 09 Right approach."

[411A]

Oh, but it gets better, Airbubba.

A few years ago inbound to MAN, we're told to intercept the localizer, and then forgotten about, due to some other aircraft on the frequency.
Steaming ahead at 200 knots (the assigned speed), we of course pass the point where we should have descended on the glidepath, whereupon the approach controller then wants to know why we haven't.

When on the ground I called the TRACON chief and told 'em what I thought of their backwards way of doing things, as, well, lets face it, the UK is well behind in the ATC department, in many respects.

At FRA you don't have this problem, nor at AMS, as well as many other locations in Europe.

The UK is special alright...special behind.:ugh:

[ACMS]

I my experience the UK controllers are not perfect but they are some of the best in the world, if you want controllers with attitude, rudeness, really fast speaking and non standard radio calls then look no further than the US of A. ( specifically JFK )

QNH is required to be given when you are cleared below TL. end of story

[maui]

Camel Hair you forgot to mention that the madness and the method have been paid for in blood. For those who do not believe research Flying Tigers, among others.

ACMS. and ORD and LAX and ATL and DFW to mention just a few.

Give me LHR/LGW any day.

Maui

[PositiveRate876]

UK ATC may not be the best in the world, but there are definately places with much worse. Like Tripoli (Libya) for example.

[outofsynch]

I just wish ICAO/NAA would agree that a change of one millibar (or even two) is of no interest to anyone, with todays modern aircraft, Radalt, etc. It is all so pernickity(?) it makes me laugh.

Getting given a one millibar change during the take off roll, I wonder whether it is better airmanship to abort, because it must be too dangerous to get airborne with a major altimeter error! :O

No complaint with controllers! Just the rule makers!

[skywaytoheaven]

Come on, if we had to list places in the world with worse ATC than UK we'd be here all day! From what I've 'heard' UK sets the standard....ok set standard 1013.:}

[BigBoeing]

Its just as annoying for us to update every a/c on freq with the new QNH as it is for you to recieve it. If you say a change of 1 millibar doesn't matter then where do you draw the line? When does it matter? And is helps speed things along when pilots reply with a quick readback rather than a frustrated "yeh we got it" which just leads to more r/t asking for readback!

[Fly Ginger]

if ever there was a thread to drive to drive a wedge of indiferrence between atc and pilots........................

standard RT.............if everyone did it we wouldn't be having this debate. Get past yourself people for heaven sake...........:ugh:

BTW, to post 11, i was in HLLT last night................not bad at all:)

[BigAir]

Surely another purpose of confirming the QNH is that you or your oppo hasn't been a muppet and copied down QFE instead - then it can make a difference. Especially for performance penalties with QNH below 1013 in aheavy e/c with variable tailwindy conditions on a hot day.

As I see it most of UK ATC is there for a reason, the numpty who was questioning cleared to ALTITUDE xxx could do with a tiny bit of research on CFIT incidents, as for Localiser then ILS, well its what you are used to but doing it this way ensures that you are established inbound before commencing descent beyond a deignated safe area. Nothing a quick wilco call back followed by established doesn't sort out.

As someone said earlier its people who come back with flippant comments without understanding that it just adds to further RT as if given a QNH you need to read it back, simple as that so just do it and stop whinging.

[SmokeAndNoise]

BigAir

Well the numpty begs to differ.. :ouch: I'm sure you'll make a great captain with that attitude :ok:

I think you may have missed the point: UK freqs being too busy causing other potential safety issues.

How about:

"Descend 4000 feet QNH 1012 millibars"

"Turn right heading 340"

...and do we need ATC to make sure we're established inbound before descending with the G/P? ..They never seem to call and ask if the cabin is secure for landing! But on the other hand they sometimes ask if the gear is down in Mother Russia :)

Nothing bad to be said about the UK ATCO's in general. I'm just expressing my personal opinion on the standard phraseology "over there".

:}

[LeftHeadingNorth]

The UK does have some of the best ATC around but I do agree that it is (as with so many other things :8) lagging behind with some of the RT procedures. If anyone could explain to me why we can't be cleared for an ILS approach like the rest of the world instead of using the "closing from left/right report established" phrase. I mean when you get the clearance "close from the left report estabslihed and descend further with the ILS once established" you really start to wonder... An update on the RT procedures would make the already good UK atc even better :ok:

[Gary Lager]

How about:

"Descend 4000 feet

The reason 'altitude' is inserted in RT relating to such clearances is not to distinguish from FLs (the THOUSAND bit ought to be a clue) but to avoid ambiguity, particularly for non-native speakers of english.

Example: aircraft flying at 6,000ft. Instructed to "Descend 4,000ft".

Does that mean descend TO ALTITUDE 4,000ft or could it mean descend BY 4,000ft (i.e.to 2,000ft)?

Yes of course WE all know the answer and of course WE wouldn't get it wrong...but as has been alluded to, these things are often learnt the hard way. Hence the inclusion in standard RT of all those things which so many object to (millibars, degrees, etc etc).

[Bagheera]

There is actually agreed UK phraseology for this. Its just that " Turn left/ right heading xxx, closing localiser from the left/right, when established on the localiser descend on the ILS" is more of a mouthful than the alternative.
There are also some some areas for caution to be exercised.
1. Glide path signals are only protected to a range of 10 miles outside of this they may be corrupt.
2 VFR/SVFR or even IFR traffic may be transiting below, through the localiser.
3 Descending below the glidepath outside of the protected range may have terrain/ controlled airspace issues.
4 False localiser capture. Just the other week I saw a modern aircraft of a respected Western fleet, twice report established some distance from the actual localiser (over high ground in IMC). The ILS was taken out of service and checked but was found to be operating perfectly. The fault was in the onboard equipment.
All of these points can be avoided by good Radar monitoring. However to have immediate descent once established on the ILS in ever busier skies is not considered to be the fail safe procedure.
With regard to the initial question, our local instructions ask pilots to make first call with the information letter and QNH thereafter it is only mentioned again if there is a change.
411A You are right, our methods are pedantic but for a reason. If you feel strongly about it then you could always file a report. Might I suggest though that you file it over here just to make sure it doesnt get buried or hidden by the FAA over there.

[Dream Land]

With regard to the initial question, our local instructions ask pilots to make first call with the information letter and QNH thereafter it is only mentioned again if there is a change As long as we're mentioning this, I wish there would be some consistency in ATIS broadcasts, sometimes between checking the ATIS initially and checking in with ATC, there will be a change, problem is, at some locations you have to listen for too long to get the relevant information, taxiway closures, how to make a read back to clearance delivery and other useless items, meanwhile, only one pilot is in the very busy loop. :hmm:

[CamelhAir]

UK ATC is the best in Europe, bar none, and by some margin too.
The majority of congestion is caused by poor pilot R/T which causes elongated exchanges. ATC stick to the book, if we all stuck to the book too, congestion would lessen dramatically.

UK airspace has many light aircraft flying around in proximity to ILS's. I believe the procedure of not clearing for descent on the ILS until established on the localiser is to ensure that your path ahead will be clear when the descent starts. Makes sense to me.

I just wish ICAO/NAA would agree that a change of one millibar (or even two) is of no interest to anyone, with todays modern aircraft,

Yeah that's real sensible. 1MB is ok, but is another 1, or maybe 2.... Hey, why not just fly 10 knots fast and 10deg left of assigned heading, sure it hardly matters at all really. :eek:

[Bagheera]

AT my location, Dreamland, the reason for the significant change flashes for a period of time on the controllers display screen. So if you call up with the previous letter, the controller can tell you the information has changed and what the change is.
The problem with the equipment is that the change does not flash for long enough sometimes to be noticed (this is, we hope, going to be changed) and if you are more than one letter out then any previous significant changes may have been lost. I am currently suggesting that a line on the screen that is very infrequently used be utilised to type in what the last significant change was so that it is permanently available to the controller (or at least until the next change!)

[Airbubba]

Surely another purpose of confirming the QNH is that you or your oppo hasn't been a muppet and copied down QFE instead - then it can make a difference.

Does anyone still use QFE? Even American Airlines gave up on it after a couple of near crashes a while back. Why is it still on the ATIS at all?


411A You are right, our methods are pedantic but for a reason.

Well, the reason that's been given to me in the past by one of my Brit friends is that it comes from the nautical tradition of making navigation procedures so complex that the enlisted men couldn't understand them and mutiny. After flying a few UK SID's, I don't think he was joking.

[411A]

UK ATC is the best in Europe, bar none, and by some margin too.


CamelAir, I'm afraid you are a tad wide of the mark.
Now, I feel that I can speak with some authority from a pilots perspective when I say this as I have personally been flying to Europe/UK since 1973...quite a long time.

I would agree that the UK ATC used to be the best, but I'm afraid that progress has been rather slow in the UK but more rapid elsewhere, so, give me FRA or AMS...yes, even ZRH, every time.

AMS especially, is very good, in my humble opinion.

And, as for HLLT (Tripoli, for those of you so blessed:rolleyes:by not going there) hasn't improved all that much in the last thirty years either, especially with more than two aircraft on the frequency.:ugh:

[Hand Solo]

Ahahahahaahah! You've really come up trumps this time 411A. ZRH ATC good? Dream on man, dream on! Perhaps you haven't actually been to ZRH since 1973, although I suppose their style of clearance suits the reckless 'dive and drive' approach style you so often advocate. I guess they are the indians to your cowboy. FRA? At least at LHR you'll know which ILS you're flying before base leg. And you'd better hope you never have an emergency on departure there because they are grade 1 hopeless, even after you've declared it.

Does anyone still use QFE? Even American Airlines gave up on it after a couple of near crashes a while back. Why is it still on the ATIS at all?

Because there are a lot of Russian, Ukrainian and other Eastern Bloc airlines flying into the UK and they use QFE at home. Plus as someone noted if we they just said altimeter 992 someone from the states would set 29.92 instead of 992mb.

[Fly Ginger]

thank god, i thought i was going mad. ZRH..............i've been there 3 times recently, on two of those occasions we were asked "could we make it" because of the insane radar vectored approach - their words , not mine!!

Without getting into we are better than you, no your not, yes we are - ner ner na ner ner.................standard RT. Non of us are perfect. If we play nicely with all the other people we all go home safely.........THE END!!:D

[Denti]

Interesting to see the reasons behind that weird clearance mumbo jumbo around the ILS.

1. Glide path signals are only protected to a range of 10 miles outside of this they may be corrupt.

Certainly very interesting, over here the GP is usually protected to 25NM, any reduction is communicated via NOTAMs and/or ATIS. But then, procedures require a GP intercept as far out as 15 NM in the first place.

2 VFR/SVFR or even IFR traffic may be transiting below, through the localiser.

That of course is a question of airspace structure and local procedures, the brits seem to be a bit more liberal in regard to VFR traffic, its way more heavly regulated here and therefore you normally have a bigger safety margin.

3 Descending below the glidepath outside of the protected range may have terrain/ controlled airspace issues.

Yup, but an ILS clearance doesn't allow to descent below the glide, just to descent on the glide and the GP has a protected range, of course we are at point 1 again here.

4 False localiser capture. Just the other week I saw a modern aircraft of a respected Western fleet, twice report established some distance from the actual localiser (over high ground in IMC). The ILS was taken out of service and checked but was found to be operating perfectly. The fault was in the onboard equipment.


Yes, false capture can and does happen, but thats the case everywhere.

That said UK ATC is of course one of the best at least in europe, but i wouldn't single them out as the single best. There are some things we see that work quite well if done differently like the ILS clearance.
The need to issue a QNH for startup has allways struck me as odd but not all that important to be honest, however getting a new ATIS if it is has indeed changed is not that a big issue on the ground in the first place, it is quite different in flight which is probably the reason that most ATCOs worldwide have to give the QNH if they cleare you to an altitude.

[Danny]

It looks to me as though everyone has missed the point of the original post on this thread. A remider: ...why the need has emerged for the seemingly redundant callout of QNH in addition to the ATIS identifier most recently monitored. I thought that copying the ATIS, and confirming it on initial callup, conveyed that the requisite info, ie wx status - and QNH - had been received?

Whilst it is of little real importance due to the seemingly miniscule extra effort needed, the point is that we are constantly being told to keep it as short and concise as possible yet here we have an anomaly where we are asked to repeat something we have already acknowledged we have received!

It would appear to me that the original posts was referring to the habit of being asked to repeat the QNH when acknowledging receipt of ATIS when INITIALLY contacting CLEARANCE DELIVERY or APPROACH. Most of you know how it goes:

YOU: "Megaplane 123, B744, gate 45, information 'Q', requesting clearance for New Francisco".
CLNC DEL: "Megaplane 123, information 'Q' current. Cleared to New Francisco. Boviley 3 Alpha. Squark 6543. QNH 1013". (Thinking to yourself, if he/she has just agreed that ATIS information 'Q' is current, why repeat the QNH?)
YOU: "Megaplane 123 is cleared to New Francisco, Boviley 3 Alpha, squark 6543".
CLNC DEL: "Megaplane 123, readback correct. QNH 1013".
YOU: "Megaplane 123 affirm. QNH 1013" (thinking to yourself, why on earth has he/she asked me to read back the QNH when they have acknowledged that the ATIS I confirmed as having received is the current one.)

It all boils down to the extra few seconds it takes to confirm something you have already confirmed as having received. There are more important things in life and this is just one of those small irritations that don't help when it is not clear why they have to do it.

[haughtney1]

Here here Danny....that one always make me shake my head..sometimes the law is an ass...:rolleyes:

As for JFK controllers....4 runway changes within 5 minutes, and a clearance to land and hold short of the intersection for the 777 rolling from right to left.....:hmm:

[fortuna76]

Fair enough Danny, I guess it has gone a bit off topic, however the resulting topic is far more interesting then the initial question of the qnh.

Yes it is a bit over the top in some respect. But then again if you had an old ATIS (which is not unlikely with them changing every 15 minutes) at least you have the latest qnh. I personally cannot be bothered always to recheck the ATIS to see if it is still few at 1400 or now few at 1500. This is all offcourse assuming it´s a nice weather day, because obviously on a bad day I want the latest!

[Bagheera]

Whilst agreeing with the annoyance factor in principal, Danny (trust me controllers find it every bit as annoying having to prompt for mandatory read backs), I believe that a seperate QNH check is a necessity due to possible transcription errors and the importance of correct pressure setting for seperation, terrain and avoiding level busts.
If any of the other information taken from the ATIS was incorrect then the problem would be readily apparent from controller clearances, information or other sources (except perhaps temperature and dew point!) with little impact on the safety operation.
However, with inbound aircraft in particular, an incorrect QNH is likely to go unnotticed until after the event has occured.

[Data Dad]

Airbubba wrote:
Does anyone still use QFE? Even American Airlines gave up on it after a couple of near crashes a while back. Why is it still on the ATIS at all?QFE on ATIS? Not in the UK...

and who uses it? Well at the airport where I work one of the North Sea helicopter Operators still does and so do many of the light aircraft not to mention Her Majestys Royal Air Force of which we see a fair few in our neck of the woods.

Digressing again.... (apologies Danny but I have to correct a widely held misconception) Denti Wrote :

Yup, but an ILS clearance doesn't allow to descent below the glide, just to descent on the glide INCORRECT (in the UK anyway) To give a quick example: Heathrow 27L PUBLISHED ILS procedure commences at 2500' If you intercept G/P at a higher altitude (and I expect you usually would) and are "cleared ILS" it is legit to descend immediately (below G/P) to 2500' (platform altitude) - not necessarily a good idea with all the London Heli routes nearby. No doubt the reply will be "nobody would do that!" Well they have in the past.....

DD

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

Danny

Just a minor point. It is my understanding that here is no requirement to read the QNH to APPROACH/DIRECTOR when checking-in in the UK. It is normally only a requirement to read the QNH to DELIVERY.

In my opinion the QNH is really the only part of the ATIS that has a major impact on ATC if copied incorrectly. The visibility, cloud base and wind don't really affect separations between aircraft (unless there are IFR/VFR operations being undertaken simultaneously). With that in mind, the altimeter setting is the only part of the ATIS that needs to be checked by ATC. Thus it makes sense to read it to them to make sure we are both using the same setting.

One technique used by controllers in the UK of which I am strongly in favour is just reporting the significant elements that have changed if I check in with an out of date ATIS letter. This is a much better method than that used in certain parts of the world where they keep badgering and bleating at you as to whether "you've got ATIS Joooliet" yet at 3000' on approach on a CAVOK day. Bizarre.

G W-H

[fireflybob]

And then at some units we get passed the QNH when we call for taxi as well...:ugh:

This is a much better method than that used in certain parts of the world where they keep badgering and bleating at you as to whether "you've got ATIS Joooliet" yet at 3000' on approach on a CAVOK day. Bizarre.


If you really want some fun when it's not too busy at such airports tell them you have received "Kilo" when the ATIS is radiating "Juliet" (etc) but I am not saying I would ever do such a dastardly thing! ;)

Also, slightly off the thread yet relevant I think, the difference in ATIS at some units with rate of speech (so fast you can hardly understand it to so slow you almost doze off whilst copying it), background noise (conversations, radios blaring etc), information given in non standard order (mainly non UK) and then when it's something unusual you have to listen to the whole broadcast again to try and piece together what has been said only to find it's something like helipad out of service....end of rant!

I almost forgot - the variability of the wind direction when it's less than 5 kts - when I get bored I work out the average wind direction from the "variability" to see if it's the same as the mean wind direction.

[Gullyone]

Just general comment---at AMS or FRA etc the controllers and procedures are wonderful, exept when something goes wrong then chaos results, at LHR etc when somthing goes wrong, no change, it was chaos to start with!! Still wonderful tho.

[wiccan]

At Manch, we are particularily pernickerty because we have an "Arrival and Departure" ATIS......Thirteen letters out of phase. eg Arr "A" correolates to Dep "N"...same QNH, different info....:ok:
bb

[Sky Wave]

Fireflybob
And then at some units we get passed the QNH when we call for taxi as well
There's a very simple reason for this.
On the controllers flight strip (be it electronic or conventional) they have a box where they have to note down the QNH that you have read back. If the box is blank when you call for taxi, they will give you the QNH so that they can note in the box the QNH that you have read back. They can't just write in 1002 because you've copied XRAY, they need to hear the words ONE ZERO ZERO TWO.

Why did they wait till you were taxying?

1) they forget to write it in the box when you read back the QNH with the clearance,
2) they forgot to give you the QNH with the clearance,
3) they don't have electronic flight strips and the ground controller has a responsibility to check QNH and cannot reference the QNH that was read back on the delivery frequency possibly an hour earlier.

Either way, is it a hardship?

I also agree that the person noting down the ATIS (Captain or FO) could write it down incorrectly. 1002 instead of 1022 is a massive difference and yes you should notice that the airfield elevation doesn't match your altimeter when doing your instrument check but it's belts and braces and why do away with the braces for the time it takes to say ONE ZERO ONE ONE?

I personally don’t usually say the words QNH or Millibars I simply say I’ve copied XRAY ONE ZERO ONE SIX, it’s quick and ATC know I have the correct QNH.

[Eff Oh]

411A
Some of the worst controlling I have ever seen has been in the US. BOS, JFK and SFB are particuarly bad. Their (US) colloquialisms are terrible as are their standards. There also seems to be a big confusion with the terms altitude and flight level in the US and Canada! := :yuk: The UK may not be the best, but they are a hell of a lot closer to the top spot than the US! :ok:

[The Sandman]

Thank you Danny, you have captured my point,and the diversion from same, perfectly. Enough of the old belt & braces guys, the point is - where does it all stop?? We are all supposedly professionals, and the gross error check of altimeter vs field elevation should catch the problem. It's the principle gentlemen. If you've got the wrong ATIS - copy the right one.

PS: Thanks Skywave for the first lucid explanation of why this exists - although it is still just a case of checking the box...

[Airbubba]

The UK may not be the best, but they are a hell of a lot closer to the top spot than the US!

No need for such an inferiority complex, when it comes to parades, you guys are the best! Anybody know what happened to the Great Bearskins at the Palace the other day?

Yank bashing is a time honoured pastime here...:)

[Capt Pit Bull]

Hardly yank bashing old chap, just a bit of return fire....

On account of not being as perfect a pilot as 411A I would like to say thankyou to the aviation approach of belt and bracers for all the times it kept me from screwing up.

Anyway, the solution is simple. Just install Microsoft Vista in every aircraft and have it pull the QNH off a website. Nothing could go wrong then......

pb

[BelArgUSA]

Data Dad -
xxx
Who uses QFE...???
It is standard in Russia and former Soviet territories, as well as China... QNH is optional in that area...
American and Eastern used QFE for long... about until late 1980s...
xxx
Our company policy is as follows - If issued a QNH, we fly QNH altitudes... If issued a QFE, we fly a QFE height... Reason... risk of error in conversion from QFE to QNH.
xxx
As to our check lists, when it comes to "altimeter", we read back xxxx always specifying millibars (or Hector Pascal) or inches.
xxx
To second 411A, I consider AMS and FRA outstanding, and generally all airports of Scandinavia as well. In UK, I have to admit that I have to pay more attention when issued a clearance. Sorry, I was trained in the USA, and accustomed to JFK, ORD or LAX... Zey spique mah kiend of Englishe...
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[cheesycol]

Remember the Mahan Air that not so long ago startled the residents of Birmimgham as it did a low fly past? They were descending to an altitude with 1013 set on a low pressure day :eek:

[Spitoon]

The reason for the readback is principally to mitigate the hazard of transcription errors - 979 instead of 997 or, in the example Sky Wave offered, 1002 instead of 1022. Differences of 1 or 2 hPa really are of little operational significance to ATC nor, I am told by pilots, to the operation of the aircraft.

The UK-specific procedures may be seen as outdated or whatever but they are all there for a reason. Having seen a transcription error of some 20hPa made in the met ob, it was interesting that two aircraft departed without comment before an inbound pointed out that there was something very wrong. There has to be a balance between belt and braces and practicality but I would suggest that there are less critical procedures that could be dispensed with than the QNH readback which might be the only cross-check with a human before the level bust!

[Right Way Up]

Seems to me the importance of double checking is on the way down rather than on the ground. If we as pilots can be trusted to check everything during preflight then our altimeter check i.e. elevation against BARO should be enough. However on descent its a different ball game.

[EZYramper]

Just for the record I think Luton ATIS still broadcasts runway QFE.

[the heavy heavy]

UNBELIEVABLE!

the only thing americans do worse than atc is regime change and beer!

sfo - the laws of physics do not apply in the bay!
jfk - english is a third language and when spoken unintelligible, when understood confusing and when queried insulting! words fail me in attempting to describe the lack of faith i have in these clowns.
mia - 'speedbird big plane can y'all descend at vne to 3nm finals and then slow to 160kts by 2nm and then switch to the visual circuit for the other runaway whilst giving way to the pa38 on finals and land after the departing 737 which has just pushed from the gate and contact twr and have a nice day y'hear'
lax - i'd rather hammer rusty screws through my nuts than fly into this airport. atc are brilliant when compared to the immigration and tsa goons that await. PLEASE DENY ME ACCESS TO THIS SH@T HOLE!
phx - ahhhhh, what a relief. they handle their 1 heavy movement a day superbly!

the best and safest atc i've ever had in the usa was maarsa! only then did i ever relax.

the arrogant beast that is US avaition is truly mind blowing! the blue on blue warriors keep telling the rest of us that we don't know didly squat. well this limey has no doubt whatsoever that if any atc unit in the US could raise its standards to be half as efficient and SAFE as those in the UK then they would become 200% better than at present :ugh:

latcc and lhr i salute you.

ps. the only thing more dangerous than a guard viper on your wing is the patriot battery defending your homeplate! give me your rude incompetant atc over your military any day!:ouch:

[galaxy flyer]

Heavy, heavy

Just a teensy bit out of sorts today??

and trying to out-do e.e. cummings on the capital letters??

Yes, through airports have weird ATC procedures, they also move about twice the tin per day as Heathrow. While you British weedle out slots to LHR by the thimble, all are welcome here. Even if you don't like the place.

On to the subject...reading back QNH is like repeating the heading to the next controller--a British oddity. The controllers are supposed to coordinate BEFORE they effect the hand-off, sez so in FAAO .65 Chapter 2 and 5.

[the heavy heavy]

galaxy flyer,

it's the twice tin with all the din that's my point! for example the control at jfk /ord on a poor weather day is at times verging on the insane. can do seems to have overtaken common sense in many cases. lahs! it's an accident waiting to happen in the name of extra capacity.

out of sorts, maybe. fed up with b*ll**** and bandito practices being paraded as professionalism, without a doubt.

and back to the point, what's more of an issue? being asked to repeat a qnh setting or arriving at jfk and after briefing 3 rwys ending up being forced to do a right base join on the yet another one with the wx at mins and a tailwind on limits for good measure! meanwhile expect no clarification of instructions and vague and often mis-leading traffic information throughout. i thought the idea was to make the operation as simple and as easy as possible so that when the sh*t hits the fan we have as much spare capacity as possible to deal with the problems. jfk/lax/ord/mia/sfo atc often are the problem!

if there is a an atc at an int airport anywhere in the world that will get you into a hold and subsequenlty onto an approach for an ils in cat3 wx better and safer than lhr then i've yet to see it. as for emerg handling they are without equal. if that means they wan't a rad hdg or qnh readback on handover then i for one have zero problem with that.

i don't hate the US, i do miss the bx!

fly safe,

THH:O

ps jfk/lax/ord i'll give u but i doubt mia/sfo/bos/phx/sea/iad move the numbers and the variety that lhr does and i'm pretty sure that latcc is right up there with numbers compared to any aatc in the world!

[javelin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_airport

[Roffa]

Yes, through airports have weird ATC procedures, they also move about twice the tin per day as Heathrow. While you British weedle out slots to LHR by the thimble, all are welcome here. Even if you don't like the place.

Simple reason for being able to move twice the amount of tin, the busiest airports in the States have twice the amount (or more) of runways.

Doesn't matter how flash (or not) the ATC is, one runway can only accept a finite amount of traffic on it. Give LHR the same number of runways as the ORDs and the DFWs and I'm sure we (the ATC) could shuffle just as many aeroplanes around... it's not rocket science after all.

[Bagheera]

On to the subject...reading back QNH is like repeating the heading to the next controller--a British oddity. The controllers are supposed to coordinate BEFORE they effect the hand-off, sez so in FAAO .65 Chapter 2 and 5.
The FAA bit kind of gives it away. These are American regulations not ICAO standards or CAA regulations. So why are British Controllers "supposed" to follow this edict?

[411A]

On to the subject...reading back QNH is like repeating the heading to the next controller--a British oddity.

Indeed, quite an oddity, not generally required elsewhere.
In addition, I have had UK controllers insist that we reduce our indicated airspeed below safe levels...such as 210KIAS.
Normally this speed would be quite OK...however as we were at FL370 and close to MLW in the hold, not especially desirable.
Clearly some of these Brit ATC boys and girls know little about aeroplane performance, which, I suppose, is not that all surprising, as a few of 'em are rather out to lunch, aircraft knowledge wise.

[ComJam]

I've never understood why people have a problem with reading back the QNH and the ATIS identifier.

Surely you'd rather read it back than have it set incorrectly. It's a flight safety issue and it takes less than a second to say "QNH 1012". :ugh:

[Fright Level]

mia - 'speedbird big plane can y'all descend at vne to 3nm finals and then slow to 160kts by 2nm and then switch to the visual circuit for the other runaway whilst giving way to the pa38 on finals and land after the departing 737 which has just pushed from the gate and contact twr and have a nice day y'hear'

:D Great one! Sounds like my regular visits into MIA.

outofsynch wonders if a change of 1 millibar is worth mentioning. Its a small adjustment, but imagine a system where there are 3 times as many units and you're adjusting the altimeter for a third of a millibar change. How daft would that be? :}

[White Knight]

Of course 411a, all "septic tank" controllers are pro pilots too, so very au fait with aircraft speeds at MAUW at FL370:ugh::ugh: Surely a pro like yourself should know how to handle an ATC insistence when you're unable:}, or can't you take the heat:}:}

[Danny]

Looks like this thread has run its course. The xenophobes from both sides have started to froth at the mouth. Time to close this thread before 411A berates us all on how heroically he used to fly his Connie through CB's when compared to todays, peach fuzz faced yoof's poling around at M0.78 in their RJ's! :ugh: