JAL plane attempts takeoff without permission in Hokkaido

[Sleep Deprivation Chamber]

(taken from JapanToday)

Sunday, February 17, 2008 at 06:43 EST
TOKYO — A Japan Airlines jet carrying 446 passengers and crew members started heading down a runway without permission while another JAL aircraft was still running after landing at New Chitose Airport on Saturday morning but stopped on an order by an air traffic controller, airport and airline officials said.

According to Japan Airlines, the pilot in command of JAL flight 502, a Boeing 747 passenger jet bound for Tokyo's Haneda airport, misheard an instruction by an air traffic controller in English, or the controller may have used terminology that was misunderstood. The controller told the aircraft that it was expected to be cleared for takeoff soon but the pilot apparently misunderstood it as an order for an immediate takeoff, the airline said.

[Mercenary Pilot]

cleared for takeoff soon

Very very bad terminology if those were the words used. :ooh:

[Sqwak7700]

Japanese ATC has some of the worst English arround. Center ATC is not bad, but local controllers, even at RJAA are some of the worst! Even the Chinese ATC speaks better English than they do. God forbid you have an emergency and need ATCs help. You might as well shutt the radio off :hmm:

[Sobelena]

Wrong phraseology, wrong interpretation, possibly from the intonation, arguably it might never have happened had they communicated comfortably in their mother tongue :}

[londonmet]

Sobelena urrm I like your thinking but we speak English for one good reason. Helps all pilots build a picture of what is happening around them. If people revert to "their mother tongue" more problems could result.

Learn english, problem solved.

[MungoP]

Learn english, problem solved

Unfortunately not in this case.. if the above interpretation of events is correct the problem was in using the phrase 'take-off' in the instruction... Following the Teneriffe disaster it was decided that the words "take-off" should be used first by the controller (not air-crew) and ONLY when giving a clearance for the a/c to take-off.. The Americans seem to have chosen to ignore that good advice and from my experience around the world so have a number of others...

What does it take to get a basic bit of good sense into the head of some people ? :ugh::{

[Kaptin M]

Japanese ATC has some of the worst English arround.Perhaps that's to match some of the worst English spellers!
Having been based here for 9 years, I disagree totally.
And having flown into Chinese airspace regularly, I think you're probably a Chinaman if you really believe that "Even the Chinese ATC speaks better English than they do".

What is, in my opinion a very worthwhile suggestion worth comsdieration for Safety's sake is that of Sobelena's, "it might never have happened had they communicated comfortably in their mother tongue."
For the sake of Safety, why NOT transmit important clearances in BOTH languages (English, and the native tongue) when aircraft are operating in a non-native English-speaking environment.

It's only going to cost airwaves - not lives.

I have also expressed another idea toward trying to resolve this problem on my own forum - PIREP - and I hope Danny sees fit to allow the link, for the sake of aviation Safety.
http://**********/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6748

[Carrier]

Quote: “.....arguably it might never have happened had they communicated comfortably in their mother tongue”
Quote: “Learn english, problem solved.”

English should be the sole language of aviation and all users should be proficient in it for aviation purposes and use the correct aviation terminology and pronunciation. However there is an even better remedy to avoid misunderstandings for such routine instructions as line up and hold or cleared for take-off. It’s long past time to be using TEXT-based communications with standard instructions and phraseology instead of relying on voice transmissions!

[flyguykorea]

Learn english, problem solved.

Aah yes, spoken like a true native English speaker.

Perhaps the international language in aviation should be Japanese, then there would have been no problem. Plenty of mis-communication between English native speakers still occurs. Don't forget that.

[murdoch_disliker]

Quite a reccuring problem with JAL, thats the 3rd one in the last 18 months that has become public and the 2nd in Hokkaido. JCAB will be spitting the dummy at them again.

[planeenglish]

The controller told the aircraft that it was expected to be cleared for takeoff soon but the pilot apparently misunderstood it as an order for an immediate takeoff, the airline said.

Seeing that this is not a direct quote from the actual transmission but a quote from an airline spokesperson to a journalist, perhaps we should wait to see if the word "departure" was used properly in the transmission between ATC and pilot.

It wouldn't be the first time things were dumbed down for journalists.

Best to all,

PE

[Dutch74]

4 or 5 years ago a JAL acft was told to line up and hold, and he rolled down the runway and completed his takeoff. I know because I worked at JAL back then. I think it even happen at the same airport (Haikado).

On the previous incident it was a CRM problem because the Capt thought he was cleared, the FO thought different but was too afraid to say anything.

[The African Dude]

Just replying to Carrier regarding the use of text-based comms. for standard instructions. I also read a very good post elsewhere which summed up the antiquity of vocal radio communications technology. I agree with this; it is bizarre behaviour for such a safety-critical environment. But then again, I'm one of the few who also think that driving a car is a bizarrely dangerous activity.

That aside.. I understand that flight plans, for example, are already transferred in some cases by text, and directly to FMC's. I see a few issues with the transmission and reception of what are currently voice instructions, however.

Text instructions require reading. ATC vectoring can be read and then verbally communicated by the non-handling pilot, fine. It adds a small link to the information chain but removes the issue of non-std phraseology- or does it?

Consider: the controller would have 2 options - 1, type his or her own message to the crew, or 2, select from a list of standard calls (a list as long as CAP 413!!:eek:). In the first case, non-std phraseology or numeric errors in entering headings can be made. In the second case, it would take ages to send a command. In both cases the command has to be sent to the correct aircraft using a keyboard, which is more prone to errors than your voice.

But would this be worth it to prevent using this old RT shenanigans? Well, a voice radio would still be required to transmit immediate commands, for maintaining separation and this would include emergencies. And about situational awareness for pilots, as mentioned by londonmet? We would either need to develop a method of sending pilots ATC information, not that there aren't enough items to monitor in the flight deck already, or somehow send the text commands as electronically-generated voice commands on some kind of monitoring frequency. But we don't want these interrupting high priority real-voice calls! Meaning pilots then have to monitor two frequencies.

It becomes incredibly complicated and adds many options for failure, because of that complexity. I think the real beauty of our antiquated system is its simplicity. At least in that respect alone, it's the safest.

AD

[motaderim]

i've been in japan for nearly 3 years now and what really iritates me is the way they (atc) use non-standard terminologies like "expect..." appended to standard clearances which to me is just irrelevant information and confuses the more important clearance issue. as professionals we don't need to be reminded of what to expect. clearance and what follows are pretty standard for crying out loud! it is common knowledge in aviation worldwide that the term "take-off" was never to be used by both parties until "cleared for take-off". i hope something positive comes out from this incident to improve communiction standards.

[411A]

Hmmm, having flown to Japan for many years, I have found the Japanese ATC to be quite good, and mis-understandings (at least in our case) very few.
Perhaps some of the folks who have problems with Japan ATC just aren't trying hard enough...:}

Now, sometimes the intonation can be a tad odd, for example, one time flying north toward NRT, my First Officer is looking carefully at the enroute chart, then asks..."Captain, I can't find this 'burning toe' fix anywhere.'
Of course, it was 'bonito', nevertheless it did sound a bit strange...:}

[NotPilotAtALL]

Hi,

What use a train driver for start his train and leave the rail station...?
A green light signal .....
No need to speak to him or send him a txt message :)
So complicate to implement on a runway ? (green and red light)
You know ..it's work also on the crossroads :)

Cheers.

[Pool Boy]

Hey 411A, the last captain to refer to me as " MY first officer " was told to stick it where the sun don't shine. :E you must have been such a joy to fly with.

[Stig Holm]

Why not introduce the phrase used for many years at the Oshkosh EAA Fly-in when cleared for line-up after another a/c landing:
"Start high speed taxi, expect take-off clearance":)

[corsair]

Aah yes, spoken like a true native English speaker.

Perhaps the international language in aviation should be Japanese, then there would have been no problem. Plenty of mis-communication between English native speakers still occurs. Don't forget that.

The language is irrelevant, let it be Greek, Latin or Tagalog. It doesn't matter. It happens to be English. Pilots are required to be proficient in it. It's as simple as that. Hence the new ICAO rules that mean even English speakers must pass a test to prove they don't have to be re-tested every few years.

[Basil]

Hey Pool Boy,
If you'd reacted like that to me or many of my fellow captains you'd have been off to visit the chief pilot whilst I arranged for another FO to be pulled off standby :*

[Donalde]

Classic......it happens just about anywhere, both by aircraft and ATC.

What I mean is when unnecessary communications take place.
In this case the Controller should not have said anything about "expect......", just have remained quiet until the standard "cleared for takeoff".

Not only do these extra non-standad transmissions transmissions stand a chance of being mis-understood, they also block up the frequency.

Just shut up, and use only standard phaseology.

[cribble]

Motaderim

I, too, used to get pissed off when 'non-standard' procedures occured. Then I " ..got some time in, son.."

Take a look at ICAO Doc 8168 (PANSOPS VOL1 Aircraft Operations) Table I-3-4-1.


Start point is http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/

"we're not in Kansas now, Toto.."

edited to say..smillies disabled to let url work... doh!

[anotherthing]

Planeenglish has already mentioned about not jumping to conclusions but sobelena et al have decided to interperet it the way they want, and give a damning condemnation on Japanese ATC!

According to Japan Airlines, the pilot in command of JAL flight 502, a Boeing 747 passenger jet bound for Tokyo's Haneda airport, misheard an instruction by an air traffic controller in English, or the controller may have used terminology that was misunderstood. The controller told the aircraft that it was expected to be cleared for takeoff soon but the pilot apparently misunderstood it as an order for an immediate takeoff, the airline said.

As usual, the clue is in the journalistic (sic) report.

According to Japan Airlines, the pilot in command of JAL flight 502, a Boeing 747 passenger jet bound for Tokyo's Haneda airport, misheard an instruction by an air traffic controller in English, or the controller may have used terminology that was misunderstood.[/QUOTE]

Firstly - it's according to some unspecified source.

Second - It was possibly the pilot who misheard an instruction.

Third - It was possibly the ATCO using wrong phraseology.

In other words, as it stands at the time of the report, (the very piece of journalism that everone on here is basing their assumptions on), no one other than those directly involved has a clue what actually happened.

[QUOTE]The controller told the aircraft that it was expected to be cleared for takeoff soon but the pilot apparently misunderstood it as an order for an immediate takeoff, the airline said.

The journalist/airline then goes on to contradict itself by stating what it claims excatly happened i.e. both parties got it wrong, not just one or the other.

There are some very good comments on here regarding sticking to the use of 1 language worldwide, using standard phraseology... What people should not be doing is apportioning blame to one party or the other without fact.

If - supposition here - the ATCO did use phraseology as mentioned above, then it was wrong to do so... however is the pilot totally blameless for reacting to an instruction that was non standard?

Instead of laying blame on people why not try to use these instances to engender better and safer practices.

Let pilots know that not only is it OK, but it is neccessary that they question any instruction that they are not sure of - this includes times if instructions are ambiguous due to poor use of phraseology.

Some countries still have a long, long way to go before they have a flight safety culture that will actually help to improve safety by learning from other peoples mistakes.
I would go as far as to say that because of the way some nations legal systems work, some countries have a long, long way to go to have a flight safety culture full stop, never mind one that works. :ugh:

In no way am I suggesting that Japan is one of these - I do not have the knowledge of Japans operations to do so.

[Shield Slam]

From Daily Yomiuri Online
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20080218TDY02302.htm


>> "Prepare for immediate takeoff. An aircraft has just landed and is on the runway," the controller told the pilot. "There's a plane behind you at a distance of 10 kilometers making its final landing approach."

Avoid "takeoff" :ugh:

[BelArgUSA]

Well, even in South America, we say "ready to go", not "ready for takeoff"...
And when we speak Español (which you hate us for using), we say "listo"...
Listo - simply means "ready" -
xxx
¿...Plisse telle mi witch ingliche ay mest pronunse...? -
xxx
Oxford English...?
BBC English...?
Cockney English...?
Yorkshire English...?
UKistan English...?
Canadian English...?
American Yank English...?
American Ebonics English...?
American Hillbilly/Alabama English...?
JFK/ORD Clearance Delivery English...?
Carribean English...?
Australian English...?
New Zealand English...?
South African English...?
East African English...?
West African English...?
India/Pakistan/Bangladouche/Sri Lankan English...?
Malaysian/Singaporean English...?
Antarctic English...? (Pinguinese)
Microsoft Flight Simulator English...?
Ppruner's English...? (also include Level 4 spelling) -
xxx
Just curious as to which one to use. Eventually, I might try it.
I heard something about speaking ICAO Level 4 English. How about Level 4 pronunciation...?
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[moosp]

Brilliant BelArg. And that is before we go around the English speaking countries and try another 100 regional accents.

Like the aircraft that we fly, the ATC procedures were designed for the 1960s. Using the human voice to start something technical is amazingly outdated. Can you imagine a modern ship starting under way by a chap calling full ahead both, or an Olympic sprint being started by a chap shouting "ready steady go!?"

Notpilotatall has the idea that aviation used in the beginning, but is unlikely to be introduced because it does not generate enough dollars for the aerospace industry. They need technical complexity to sell lots of fancy technology. Pity, as it would be a good system and it worked for 50 odd years in aviation. I have never made a mistake on a take off clearance when waiting for a green Aldis from the tower.

My heartfelt plea is to the monolingual English speakers out there to spend time and effort learning the nuances of English spoken as a foreign language. I have seen so many monolingual English pilots simply shut off from the heavily accented but easily understood phrasing and demand in sometimes unpleasant terms for repeats or a different controller.

We all know the story of "Can you speak more roundly...".

[BelArgUSA]

Hola moosp -
xxx
Just read my thread nº 215 (page 11) in "Level 4 ICAO English"...
Just an anecdote about Mumbai - Sorry, we cannot make everybody happy in R/T...!
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[Greg_ATCO]

Well who do you think is to blame for this, the english speaking ATCO, the semi deaf pilot, or the visually impaired ground controller who missed the large yellow blob on the screen calmly making its way up the runway?? The instruction from the ATCO would have been repeated back, so would the ATCO not have noticed then?? Surely the ground controller is expected to see this?

[Rumble]

Perhaps not in this instance but actually the word 'expect' is actually a completely standard bit of clearance terminology & has a very specific meaning, which is:- if you lose comms carry out the instructions that were given after the word expect.

[757_Driver]

Perhaps not in this instance but actually the word 'expect' is actually a completely standard bit of clearance terminology & has a very specific meaning, which is:- if you lose comms carry out the instructions that were given after the word expect.

not anywhere I've flown it doesn't.
Expect is used alot, but not in the above context.
If I get "descend FL200, expect FL150 by {some waypoint}", then if I lose comms, I certainly do not descend past FL200.

If i'm given "line up RWY 01, expect immediate" I don't just take off as soon as the rwy is clear if the radio craps out!!

[funfly]

Red light/Green light sounds a really good idea.
P.S. It is very easy to read back ATC instructions 'out of habit' without registering what the ATC has actually said. (although of course, I've never done it myself ;)

[Greg_ATCO]

Wow...I was a bit shocked at that comment!? Never expected 'expect' to be used much... Driver - Your right in saying that you wouldn't just take off if the RWY was clear...But do you not think it would be safer for you to descend to FL 150 at the 'waypoint' if you lose comms? Surely the ATCO would be thinking ahead in giving you instructions for your next move...what if he asked you to do this because there is a risk of you getting to close to another aircraft at FL200?

[dream747]

Inversely, the word 'expect' is probably used by ATC to give the pilot an idea on what would be coming next for them if things go as planned. But if you are not formally cleared to FL150 in this case, wouldn't it be better not to since you're not formally cleared? They need to make sure the situation would turn out as planned before giving further clearances. If not he could have cleared you straight to FL150.

[anotherthing]

Greg ATCO -

757Driver (and Dream747) are 100% correct, Rumble I don't know where you picked up that gem but it's not a safe practice and is totally wrong.

I use the word 'expect' every now and again... for instance if there is a sniffer aircraft flying near EGLL and it is blocking say, FL100 on the stacks I may say "ABC123 Expect FL90 level 10 miles before (stack), descend now FL130".

(The expect level should come first to avoid confusion).

The 'expect' phrase is there to assist pilots in their planning. It's letting them know what you might need them to do in the near future. It is not an instruction to carry out in the event of comms failure - that's what the lost comms procedure is for FFS :ugh::ugh:. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs a thorough LCE check. It basic ATC for goodness sake!

Why do we use it? Well in the example above I may need to get the aircraft down to FL90 to get it under the blocker at FL100 - this will help the EGLL Dir.

I cannot descend to that level at the moment as I have crossing traffic at FL120. Therefore, to let the pilot know what my probable intentions are I use the above phraseology. This means that the pilot knows that he needs to descend at a rate commensurate with him being able to make a further descent to meet the FL90 Level by restriction - if I issue it (and only if).

This helps the pilot, and it helps me because I am less likely to be in the situation of asking the pilot (after clearing the crossing traffic) to descend to FL90 level 10 mile before, only for him to come back and say he is unable to.

Greg - you are correct in 1 sense - The ATCO is thinking ahead by using the "expect" phrase - but it does not mean he will want you to do it... 9 times out of 10 he will; but situations change.

For any ATCO to think that an "expect" phrase becomes an explicit instruction in the event of comms failure is shocking :=

[Question_Answer]

How about a small set of numeric codes (to be approved by ICAO) that can be read out to complement the rest of the transmission - analagous to what the police use in some parts of the world?

So, for example I suggest that the following 4 would be the primary positive re-inforcement for take off and landing events. (SLF so please forgive lack of authoritative language)

Flight 123 You are Cleared for take-off on runway 27L, Code 333.......
Flight 123 Please wait and hold, Code 666
Flight 123 You are cleared to land on runway 27L.....code 888
All traffic (!) Hold all operations - Code 555

Not suggesting a code for every other possible type of communication (since there would be too many and cause more confusion). Other risk is of course that the code gets confused with the Airline flight number (in which case avoid using specific flight numbers?)!

[Greg_ATCO]

Yeah I understand completely! Just out of interest...how often do you guys experience a comms failure? I would guess not very often??

[anotherthing]

I have just checked out some profiles...

GregATCO

I see you are a mortgage consultant - that and the fact you posed your post in a manner to make it a possible question make it more forgiveable - you may only be trying to understand something you are not trained in.

However:

Rumble

Your profile states you are airline staff - thus not an ATCO. Please desist from posting totally inaccurate and potentially dangerous comments about something you clearly do not understand.

It is one thing to post opinions, it is something else to post wholly inaccurate comments, as fact, on practices that you do not understand.

The way you wrote the post leads people to believe that you are an ATCO. What you wrote shows other ATCOs that you are not... unfortunately pilots might not always be able to tell the difference.

If you are an ATCO - 2 things:

Update your profile.

Volunteer for some remedial training.

Fortunately in this instance both 757_Driver and dream747 'rumbled' you.

[anotherthing]

Greg - we (ATCOs) quite often 'lose' aircraft. By that I mean they are often transferred but then due finger trouble (or more likely, being given the wrong frequnecy), they do not call when we expect them to.

We would then phone the previous controller to ask if they still have it.

Sometimes they have just forgotten to transfer it, other times they have transferred it but somewhere in between it has gone to the wrong frequency.

This is usually resolved quickly (couple of minutes at the most) and is completely safe - the aircraft is a known entity.

Actual total comunications failures are, thankfully few and far between. I know a couple of people who have had them, but I have never experienced it in 19 years - from both sides of the mic.

[plugster]

The first thing I'd do when something is not entirely clear to me (especially t/o and landing clearances) is: just ask again and if the instruction wasn't made in standard phraseology let the atco confirm the last instruction in standard phraseology.

Just my two cents...
Let's see what the investigation reveals.

[757_Driver]

thread drift but...

The "expect" is certainly used to help us plan ahead. For example a common restriction coming up from france into LGW is FL150 by bexil - now this is about 5000 ft below the ideal descent profile, so if the atco just said. "descend FL200" I would descend on my estimated profile to FL200, if he then said as I approached FL200 "descend FL150, and be level BEXIL" we've got no hope unless we chop the wings off.
Therefore he will say "expect FL150 by BEXIL, Descend FL200", this means I can caculate a Top of Descent based on a profile that gets me to BEXIL at FL150. However as stated this makes zero difference to basic ATC principles.

re comms failure.

I fly a clunky old machine which was 'new' in the decade of big hair and bigger red braces in the city and we have 2 VHF radios, 2 HF radios a transponder and any number of mobile phones with which to communicate with the outside world. I think the days of flying around triangles and doing low passes to see a light flashed from the tower are probably behind us!

[Greg_ATCO]

Yeah I know what you mean by 'lost'...it actually happened when I was visiting a tower recently. But before I even understood what the problem was it was fixed and contact had been made! So I know what you mean about it being resolved quickly. I have a question regarding transponder codes...The ATCO...normally the ground controller correct? Will give the pilot the squak...at what point does this get input? Before or after takeoff...? And why do the numbers only range from 1-7?? Thanks

[dazdaz]

Anotherthing.........Welcome back rainbow, you changed your user name?

[anotherthing]

dazdaz

Nope never been rainbow (first signed up as take5 years ago, but then drifted away, couldn't remember my name so signed back up as this one). Why do you ask?

I think my reply and advice to rumble was 100% spot on and stand by it if that's what you are referring to!

[757_Driver]

...The ATCO...normally the ground controller correct? Will give the pilot the squak...at what point does this get input? Before or after takeoff...? And why do the numbers only range from 1-7?? Thanks.

the sqwawk is usually given with the departure clearance, which at a big airport with a 'clearance delivery' freq will be on the gate, at smaller airfields it will be given prior to takeoff, usually during taxy.

The numbers only go to 7 'coz mode A is a binary system (well Octal I suppose) hence 8 choices.

[Rumble]

Anotherthing

When I learned this years ago I was in forces in the US being given a briefing by ATC. Admittedly it was more in relation to a departure clearance ("cleared to climb to FL 150 expect FL___ to cruise"). Using loss of comms you would follow your flight plan but we were told we should use the level given in the 'expect' part. I still believe this to be true. As for the example above I spoke to a supervisor at Swanwick very recently who told me (using expect FL130 at goodwood as an example) that they would expect this clearance to be complied with even without the actual subsequent descent instruction being heard. Especially as it is a restriction on the chart as well and if you were not 130 or below by Goodwood you really would be in the way big time.

You are an ATCO and I am not but I'm not just spouting here I was repeating what I learned by official means.

I am happy to be wrong we all want to be singing from the same sheet but get off your high horse & discuss rather than playing mister holier than.

Cheers

[radio ears]

Quote
I fly a clunky old machine which was 'new' in the decade of big hair and bigger red braces in the city and we have 2 VHF radios, 2 HF radios a transponder and any number of mobile phones with which to communicate with the outside world. I think the days of flying around triangles and doing low passes to see a light flashed from the tower are probably behind us!



I do know of an incident involving a major UK RAF site where total coms was lost and yes they were at the end of the runway with tilly lamps.....

[sooty615]

Rumble,

Do yourself a favour - you're in a hole, so stop digging!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

sooty

[anotherthing]

Rumble.

I was going to apologise for being a little harsh, but when I thought about it I realised I had nothing to apologise for.

If I came across as holier than thou, then re read my post. Your post was made in a manner that would lead someone reading it to believe you are an ATCO. You stated as fact, a practice that is inherently dangerous.

Perhaps not in this instance but actually the word 'expect' is actually a completely standard bit of clearance terminology & has a very specific meaning, which is:- if you lose comms carry out the instructions that were given after the word expect.

Most pilots (like most ATCOs) on PPRuNe would not blindly believe everything on here, especially if something did not ring true. Unfortunately, due to the nuances of the English language, a tiny percentage of pilots or ATCOs might think that what they read here is Gospel and then carry out that action when it next occurs.

Another scenario is that someone who has read your post is given, in the future, an 'expect' statement in their clearance and then lo and behold, suffers a comms failure.
In the scrabble to work out what has occured and what the next course of action should be, they just might have a niggle in the back of their mind that tells them they should carry out the 'expect' part of the clearance - they can't remember where they heard it, but they know they heard it somewhere, from an ATCO of all people, so for the purposes of expediancy, that's what they will do.

If the above sounds far fetched, then think again... it's a failing in human nature and perfectly feasible.

What you heard from the sources in the US is correct to an extent, albeit it seems a little lost somewhere either in interpretation or otherwise. However it has nothing to do with the word 'expect FL' and all to do with the lost comms procedure and following a flight planned FL.

If that is what the Supervisor (I'm guessing a South Bank LAS in AC) told you, then they are wrong.

PM me their name and I will happily ensure that they are made aware of this - not for any other purpose other than flight safety. (I will of course make sure that they did indeed mean it and that is was not just a misunderstanding)


I spoke to a supervisor at Swanwick very recently who told me (using expect FL130 at goodwood as an example) that they would expect this clearance to be complied with even without the actual subsequent descent instruction being heard. Especially as it is a restriction on the chart as well and if you were not 130 or below by Goodwood you really would be in the way big time.

Every single day there are a handful of aircraft inbound to Gatwick (thats the FL130 level GWC restriction) that do not meet the level restriction. Contrary to what you heard, there is nothing to be in the way big time off if the restriction is not met.

I personally find it very hard to believe that any ATCO said what you have quoted regarding 'expect'... even an LAS or GS!

Believe me Rumble, my high horse is well and truly in the stable... I, like the majority of ATCO's, have quite strong opinions, but I am always willing to listen and accept when I am wrong.

In this instance I believe that the error needed to be pointed out and firmly dispelled.

If I were you, I would personally amend or delete my post... I certainly would not feel happy leaving it knowing the possible consequences it might have. As an airline employee, you should understand the principal of acting responsibly :ok:

[Self Loading Freight]

It's my understanding that during some sim training, there's a (pretend?) ATCO on a microphone nearby providing simulated ATC over the simulated radio. Just hook up bods from other countries, over t'intarwebs if you don't fancy the phone bill. It's more realistic, and everyone benefits.

Alternatively, get these people (http://www.soundcomparisons.com/) to do an ICAO version.

More seriously: it's a safety issue and it's not going away, even if the proposed linguistic testing/self certification is implemented. Shouldn't it be treated as such, with an appropriate mix of technology and training identified that will accept that which cannot be changed and produce a solution that reduces the inherent risk?

R

[swordsman]

Bear in mind as well that other cultures especially eastern have a problem with saying they do not understand what has been said to them.It is a loss of face as they appear (to themselves) stupid.

[Dream Land]

Lights, codes, I don't think so, all aircraft taking an active runway in a very large aircraft should be ready for immediate departure, hopefully all agree, keep the phraseology simple, "line up and wait", "taxi into position and hold", whatever your flavor. When the runway is clear, issue the takeoff Clearance, simple, no need for some elaborate explanations when you don't speak English very well. If you don't have the separation, send someone around, if it's so tight, don't put him in position to begin with, anyone having trouble with this concept should visit Atlanta or Minneapolis.

[VNAV PATH]

:ok: You are perfectly clear and right DreamLand !

Aviation is enough complicated , not to add hazardous phraseology and procedures.

[757_Driver]

Lights, codes, I don't think so, all aircraft taking an active runway in a very large aircraft should be ready for immediate departure, hopefully all agree, keep the phraseology simple, "line up and wait", "taxi into position and hold", whatever your flavor. When the runway is clear, issue the takeoff Clearance, simple, no need for some elaborate explanations when you don't speak English very well. If you don't have the separation, send someone around, if it's so tight, don't put him in position to begin with, anyone having trouble with this concept should visit Atlanta or Minneapolis.

absolutely - the only caveat I would add is that, as per the recommendation after teneriffe, the word "takeoff" should not be used until the ATCO says "clear for takeoff", and the pilot reads back.
Any reference to takeoff prior to that point, i.e clearances etc should use the word "departure"

[galdian]

For interest New Chitose is a military field with military controllers controlling a sh*tload of commercial aircraft from 74's down to saab's in conditions during winter that can mean the minima on landing (550m RVR) dissapears

to 100/200m for taxying.

They have parallel runway ops that mean someone, whether taking off or landing, will have to cross another operating runway (most often landing aircraft crossing departure runway.)

The military do things differently both operationally and in radio phraseology; this is by no means the only incident within the last year, generally things got better without any prangs however obviously a way to go.

An airfield where situational awareness and strong crew interreaction is extremely benificial (not strong points of Japanese aviation at any time but, hey, blind dumb obeisance is not a strongpoint for Americans/Brits/Australians etc so we all have our crosses to bear.) ;)

As for "expect" - another departure in Japan will be cleared "maintain 3000, expect FL210."
Seeing I'm planning to go FL330 a waste of time telling me - but they still do, everytime. It'll take years for them to (collectively) appreciate it's a waste of time and then (collectively) adjust the clearance.
"Expect" on descent when cleared an intermediate level?? - Japan has heaps of crossing airways and heaps of crossing requirements which they will tend to issue even if you're the only aircraft within 100nm of the place (don't have to make a judgement decision and look what's actually happening, much betterer!) but operationally to have some idea of upcoming requirements is not a bad thing.

At least one big plus for the Japanese ATC - they've got it spot on with their phraseology when they are talking to "Qantas" aircraft! :p:p:p:p

Cheers all. :ok:

[proverbs]

even the koreans speak better , then the Jays. They are very poor.:bored: