Radiotelephony in shambles in Europe?

[JJflyer]

Since the introduction of the 8.33 radios and the widthspread use of the said "Channels" I have noticed more and more flights are lost. The general level of RT work and situational awareness seems to have diminished with the introduction of advanced glass cockpit aircraft. Who is reading an enroute chart these days? FIR boundaries?

Wrong frequencies assigned or handovers forgotten by controllers working several busy sectors at the same time or more often pilots just not listening or getting the frequency wrong, easy to do really. Know your FIR boundaries. If I approach a boundary clearly marked on a chart and have not heard from ATC I will prompt them. Should FIR boundaries be included in EFIS symbology and databases? I use the FIX function to mark them.

Do we have too many sectors in Europe? Is the airspace too complicated? Should it be simplified? I have calculated 30 odd frequency changes in less than an hours flight.

The increase is considerably in the last 10 years and readily noticeable on 121.5 or Guard. The emergency frequency is being congested by ATC trying to reach flights for the correct frequency. The practice pans, why must these be done on 121.5. Pilots in error trying to reach various handling agents or OPS with their ETA's and then there is the Guard Police discussed elsewhere. This has become a clear safety issue.

I remember years ago hearing someone on guard. I would immediately pay attention and listen what was being said. Today I hear the constant talk and I turn the volume down until the yapping seizes. A good practice? There is so much talk on 121.5 that it has started to make listening ATC difficult.

The introduction of JAR has reduced the training requirements to be able to operate aircraft radios. Is this something we want when skies over Europe are busier than ever?

[fireflybob]

Speech is a poor way of conveying safety critical information - we should be using a datalink system.

Aviation uses Amplitude modulation - an inferior system.

Too late now but when 8.33 khz was introduced a channel number system should have been utilised - eg call XXX on channel "Eight Alpha" rather than all these numbers.

If aircraft were fitted with "Contran" this would prevent simultaneous transmissions and repeat calls etc.

Good idea about FIRs on the EFIS and yes using FIX is a good plan and we should be aware of where the FIR boundaries are and prompt if no handover.

Totally agree about the sectorisation but with the traffic densities around now is there any other way of doing it?

Surely modern technology could address some of these challenges? 121.5 monitoring could perhaps be done on a SELCAL type system?

[BusBoy]

totally agree about 121.5, used to sit up and listen if heard anything on that freq, now just turn down to a background chatter as so much going on (especially in certain airspace) that it interferes with listening to ATC.

I was always trained to have a chart out, just in case. That seems to have died off.

Also with ATC band boxing, especially with Brest, Bordeaux and Madrid, the initial check-in often takes several calls, a reversion to previous and a recall to get a response taking up 20 miles or so.

[potkettleblack]

Don't worry not everyones standards are dropping. Enroute charts (both hi and low level) are out on our flight decks and the PNF will make a mention to the other guy about FIR boundaries and when we can expect a handover. If not handed over when expected we make a nice position report which is usually enough to prompt the controller to pass us on. If nothing heard on a quiet frequency for some time we will ask for a radio check as well.

Also 121.5 is up and monitored usually when we climb through 10,000ft although it can be tedious some days with the amount of double clicking, singing and practice pans going on. Don't get me wrong about the latter, I am all for practice but just wondering whether the powers that be would be better setting up a practice "guard" frequency instead.

[F4F]

shambles...
A bit exaggerated, isn't?
Been sailing for a while and look ma, no hands: just by listening out and being aware of my position, never "got lost". This without pulling the cumbersome RFC out of the bag on the other side of the FDK or waking the F/O up, please call me minimalist if you want :ok:
The other extreme is chap we had in a previous company, who before each flight pulled a copy CFP where he had joggled down all frequencies pertinent to the route on a previous flight. Clipping this list on his side he made it a point, disregarding PF or PNF duties, of selecting the next frequency from his list as soon as feasible...

As a mini way of reducing chatter and enhance simplicity why not drop the 1 in front of each freq, e.g. call it 21 decimal 9 iso 121 decimal 9 :cool:

As for the use of 21 decimal 5, the guard frequency, I have to agree with you. Most eastern countries use it as a chat frequency, the French call or try to call their ops, Italians use it to create jungle or other irksome noises, the brits for nav exercising, all which means that it finally either gets turned off or at least set to its lower volume setting, hardly a good practice...


live 2 fly 2 live

[ATC Watcher]

quick replies to some statements :

Too many sectors : because too many aircraft wanting to use same airspace = only way today to increase airspace capacity is multiplying number of sectors. each needs a dedicated frequency here you go.

Use data link instead of R/T : equip first and with ATN , today only (far) less than 10% a/c are ATN D/L capable
Retrofit is very expensive. ACARS ( FANS-1A) is not suitable for ATC dense airspace operations ( too long responses times and no acknowledgment messages back )

Drop first 1 : excellent idea., but against ICAO / ITU regulations which stipulates that frequencies on R/T have to be read in full (to separate HF from VHF etc..) Attempts to change this failed. Nevertheless some Aeronautical charts have already done this.

Prepare a list of frequencies to be crossed en route :totally useless in most dense airspace as sectorisation is variable according to traffic load and staff availability. You never know in advance which sector is bandboxed or separated, and consequently which frequencies are in use.

121,5 : fully agree ; but as long as States or ANSPs will not monitor it , identify the culprits and fine the perpetrators nothing will change.

Golden rules of today dense European airspace : :1) make a position report at least every 30 minutes if you have not been called. I) if you hear nothing, you are probably on the wrong frequency.
.

[Denti]

If i dont hear ATC calling us after more than 10 minutes i tend to get nervous (and usually ask for a radio check if the frequency is quiet). Probably just a result of too long flying shorthaul around europe where you usually have a frequency change every 1 to 2 minutes.

[captjns]

Fearness of FIR encroachment is cured by noting them on the PLOG, then creating a 20 mile circle around the FIR.

[411A]

Hmmm, no high/low charts on the FD, missed radio calls, unsure about FIR boundaries...doesn't sound good to me.
Perhaps these 'new' flight decks are far too automated.
And, new guys into the system don't know any better.

Situation far from satisfactory.

[joehunt]

In my day we used to note the new freq on the plog at the relavent position. I still do it but a lot I notice are not and maybe a contibuting factor. If you are given a wrong or useless forward freq change, one is able to go back to the noted freq. Yes I am aware the modern avionics remembers the previous freq but is not full proof. the freqs are written on the chart to but not always correct for the day and your position.

Rec freq, readback, write it down on plog, then change freq then call.

Just my 2 pence worth.

As for 121.5 abuse, it discusts me. One day someone will need to get a word in on that freq, real quick. At the moment they would be lucky to get a word in edge ways.

[SOPS]

Why cant they make a couple of huge upper level centres. Start by expanding MST?? Or is that too simple?

[jumparound]

You would still need the same amount of sectors as were only allowed work a maximum number of planes at any one time so reducing centres won't reduced sectors.

[Radar]

Back in '65 that was the whole idea behind Eurocontrol. A logical progression into the jet age (as it was back then), scuppered by lack of political will / agreement. An idea that's a lot lesslikely to fly (no pun intended) today given ANSPs as private entities with shareholders and ATC being 'run' as a business. All the market forces are working in the opposite direction with everyone wanting their slice of the pie. Most probably, MST in its' current form, is time limited.

[Rananim]

who before each flight pulled a copy CFP where he had joggled down all frequencies pertinent to the route on a previous flight. Clipping this list on his side he made it a point, disregarding PF or PNF duties, of selecting the next frequency from his list as soon as feasible...


THats a bad habit which can get you into trouble.Fast fingered Freddie tries getting landing clearance from....ground crontrol.Always keep the last frq on standby.Setting dep freq on stby for takeoff is the exception.

[fireflybob]

Surely the relevant charts should always be to hand. Ok it depends on the context a little bit - if I am operating from my base aerodrome then I am not obsessed about checking the SSAs on the low level but the principle still applies.

But in particular for descent I feel the low levels should always be available and indeed consulated. Msa on plogs can be incorrectly annotated. I feel that we are getting a generation of pilots now who are too dependent on what the FMC is telling them.

Perhaps in the days before radar environments went we had to give standard position reports there was more awareness of FIR boundaries - you got the handoff when you called at the FIR. But now we are (usually) in a radar environment you have to be more proactive to spot that you havent been handed off to the next sector. Also I feel that an awareness of FIRs is a part of flight planning since the ATC plan shows where the FIRs are.

[eckhard]

Here are a few ideas that I use to help:

1. Look at the ATC flight plan and note the EET of the FIR crossing points, then write the name of the FIR next to that place on the Plog. OK, that won't solve the sector issue in Europe, but it works in most of the rest of the world.

2. Try to have an appropriate chart to hand and keep a mental plot of where the likely freq changes will be.

3. Write down the frequencies as they come up, then you will have a reference if you have to 'backtrack' to the previous one.

4. On some bizjet installations, you can display airspace sectors, FIRs and geo-political boundaries; great for SA. Can't wait to see this feature on the airliners.

Just my two cents-worth!

[sooty615]

I fully agree regarding the congestion on 121.5 with chat, burps and calls to ops - the miscreants who continue to do this should be fined. Regarding "practice pans" my view is that it should be encouraged - and in any event those practising are likely to be with instructors who would intervene should a "real" pan or mayday suddenly appear.

Regarding the other matter of radio congestion, I think it is a problem that has been unnecessarily exaggerated - sure it gets a "bit busy" sometimes, but ATC generally prioritise and recognise when someone needs to be called if it looks like their turn may be overdue.

As for sailing through FIR's without noticing that nobody appears to be talking to you (because you screwed up or misheard a frequency change), then my suggestion is that you go and get re-trained. You can't have it both ways - you complain that the radios are too busy, but don't recognise your likely screw up when it's all gone quiet!!

Sooty

[JJflyer]

Quote

As for sailing through FIR's without noticing that nobody appears to be talking to you (because you screwed up or misheard a frequency change), then my suggestion is that you go and get re-trained. You can't have it both ways - you complain that the radios are too busy, but don't recognise your likely screw up when it's all gone quiet!!

Unquote

Mhh. Have not gone sailing past FIR's and has not gotten quiet with me. Just an observation I have made in the last few years.

[sooty615]

I'm sorry JJFlyer, but I was not suggesting that you may have done it, but so many do. Once or twice is bound to happen to all of us at sometimes in our career, but my observations are that it has got busier on the radio, but not to an extent that should concern us - not just yet anyway.

As those who fly outside of Europe will know, there are many TMA's with frequencies far more congested than the likes of London/Frankfurt/Paris. Many such American controllers for example are dealing with traffic of all kinds destined for airports in close vicinity to a major hub - the difference is that they seem to manage it with more "break breaks" than European fliers are familiar with. In a way it stops the often unnecessary chit chat and lengthy calls/readbacks that some of our breed seem to like to make. Part of the problem also seems to be that low houred F/O's have still not yet got over the love of hearing their own voice - and insist on talking for too long. (I was guilty myself when I was first given the opportunity to advertise my presence and RT skills).

I was merely pointing out to those posters who made reference to flying past or through FIR's that the clue of a missed frequency is obviously a lack of radio chatter. As others wisely pointed out - if it goes all quiet for a while, first check your volumes, and or make a radio check. Not really rocket science is it?

The other solution of course would be to let the FO's fly all the legs - now that would give us all a lot of peace and quiet!!

Sooty

[chippy63]

Thanks, potkettleblack, just what this slf likes to hear!:ok:

[BeeBopp]

Started reading this hoping to see some positive comments from crew about the EHS (enhanced mode S) we bust a gut and a piggy bank to install on our fleet last year. Are any ground stations actually capable of receiving the DAPS (downlink aircraft parameters). As a minimum EHS capable aircraft transponders should encode the following for display on a controllers screen as required by him/her.

Selected Altitude
Roll Angle
Track Angle Rate (or True Airspeed if Track Angle Rate is not available)
True Track Angle
Ground Speed
Magnetic Heading
Indicated Airspeed/Mach No.
Vertical Rate (Barometric rate of climb/descend or baro-inertial)

One of the aims of all this is to reduce RT congestion though it has many other benefits and massive scope for further development. I lost interest once we finished the mod programme but there is some basic info here, skip the first few pages

http://www.eurocontrol.int/enprm/gallery/content/public/docs/ru_091202_1_0_ehs_explanatory_material.pdf

[dmdrewitt]

The other solution of course would be to let the FO's fly all the legs - now that would give us all a lot of peace and quiet!!

Sooty

:= Don't tar everyone with the same brush

[JJflyer]

Hi

About 9 months ago leaving from LGW on a 767 I got controller saying something that I found funny. The FO was flying and me being the PM. London comes and says confirm the cleared level 170 not 168. I had read back FL170 just about 10 sec back. It annoyed me but I looked at MCP ALT SEL window and voila, I had 16800 set in it. It took me some digging around to find out about the system but it seems to work atleast in UK. Don't know about the rest of Europe.

[Blacksheep]

To meet mandated deadlines, we back-office engineers arranged EHS modifications to all your airliners, we've even put VDL transceivers into VHF3 channels wherever we can to accomodate ACARS downlink etc. (Unfortunately, not every operator specifies triple VHF Comms when they define their fleet configuration.) Until the complementary ground systems and operational procedures to use the technology are put in place, the airwaves will remain congested. Meanwhile, for many years now, at ground level we've been able to cross national boundaries as though they weren't there. Why must the sovereignty of national airspace be guarded so jealously? The time for ditching so many superfluous ATC handovers are long overdue. We need a single Europe-wide ATC system and we need it yesterday.

JJFlyer's interesting last comment shows that pilots may in any case, be un-aware of what data their aircraft already transmit in the background. As an industry, despite technology already being in place, are we not simply clinging on to outdated procedures?

[F4F]

time for ditching so many superfluous ATC handovers are long overdue. We need a single Europe-wide ATC system and we need it yesterday. :D

or even better than that, the for ever in utopia FREE FLIGHT!
Back to reality, I'm afraid we are not gonna see huge improvements in the way we communicate...
Causes:
- political interest
- national pride
- fear of redundancies
- loosing the "human touch"

Just looking at the way Europe has developed, and we see the reflections of bureaucracy as applied to the aviation world.
What a pity, such a waste of human and monetary resources...
ATC (let's remote control those guys...) vs Pilots (don't need those, we have TCAS...), interesting conflict in sight :cool:

[ChristiaanJ]

ATC (let's remote control those guys...)
Food for thought.....

Rather than blather on VHF, ATC selects the aircraft, types in next requested FL, heading, speed, etc. and datalinks it to the aircraft.
Appears as "bugs" on the aircraft displays.
If the aircraft doesn't respond/react, it's a red blip on the screen.
As soon as it does (climb, heading change, new speed selected) the blip goes orange. Once the aircraft matches the new request, the blip goes green.

I would think even the pilots would like it, especially now that they DO have TCAS.
"Ping"....
Current FL displayed say "FL280"
Just below it says "ATC > FL240" in magenta.
You set an ALT ACQ for FL240.
Once the a/c is set up for the descent, your a/c display goes to "ATC > FL240" in yellow (as does the ATC blip), and the legend disappears once you're at FL240.

Don't shoot me down immediately. I know the "interface" doesn't exist yet, and my description is over-simplistic.

But using simple visual clues and messages would seem to be a far more reliable way to communicate data than the current RT mishmash, and get rid of much of the language problems as well.

CJ

[Flying Guy]

I am surprised nobody has mentioned this so far but there is a huge amount of unnecessary verbiage congesting the frequencies. It usually starts with "good morning" or "good evening". Listen guys and girls, if you are coming onto a busy frequency or into FRA or AMS and they are really busy, you don't need that greeting.

If you are on a busy frequency in radar contact and turned over to a new controller, you don't need to name the position or fix you are over - they already know.

You don't need to add the word "maintaining" after you give your flight level.

When transferring to a new controller the call-up can be as simple as this, "Radar, GlobaL Air 245, flight level three five zero." Instead of, "Good morning Radar, this is Global 245 air crossing enema intersection flight level 350 maintaining - squawking 1234."

Sheesh - You just don't need all that and it is using up the frequency.

Just my two cents. I don't mind the "good morning" stuff if the frequency is quiet but really guys, not necessary in a busy environment.

Oh and by the way, a pet peeve of mine are people who transmit instantly when they switch to a new frequency. Please wait more than a micro second! India is the worst for this, everybody stepping on everybody else.

[ChristiaanJ]

Flying Guy,

While I agree overall, I'm not so sure about the "good morning".

I find I always need a fraction of a second - let's say the first two words or so - to "tune in" to a new voice, be it on R/T or even simply on the telephone, and the meaning of those first two words usually gets lost. If that's "good morning" it doesn't matter. If it's a callsign, it's more serious.

Maybe it's only me?

[Flintstone]

"Coming down".

:rolleyes:

[justlooking_tks]

joehunt

"One day someone will need to get a word in on that freq, real quick. At the moment they would be lucky to get a word in edge ways."

The person that maybe trying to get a word in may be the pilot of a military interceptor, trying to give someone a final warning before he proceeds to blow the "uncontactable" aircraft out of the sky.

"Uncontactable" for the reasons being dicussed in previous posts on this thread.

[The Nr Fairy]

justlookingtks:

Now THAT would be a good reason to a) be listening out and b) making a call on 121.5 !

[PAXboy]

Non-pilot speaking.

In the UK, when the road side repair services (AA and RAC) found their voice channels overloaded, they moved to a data system that increased the throughput of information by a remarkable amount and improved the entire operation. Further, it allowed an electronic record of all exchanges to be made that can benefit both parties in a dispute.

However ... if you were receiving all that data onto the display screens, rather than into your ears - would that mean spending more time head down, rather than head up observing?

Perhaps the compromise is that - all the data is transmitted to the system and then it reads it aloud to you. Synthetic voice systems are very sophisticated now and, if you did not hear it clearly, you could check the screen or have the system read it to you again and ATC are not involved.

I'm sure that this kind of system has already been promoted but we will not get rid of euro control until we have had more than one major prang that could be ascribed to euro control.

As always, the only things that change minds are money and death. Such a change would save money but lose political influence and so we have to wait for the death bit.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

As Pax Boy, said. The data transfer technology is already here, and must be used.

Pax Boy: it is already in use, on transatlantics, etc. Not seen you in LUT exec lounge recently, as I am now based in Sandy Bottom.

Take care

glf

[PAXboy]

Yes the technology has been around for more than a decade and so has now been through several stages and well road tested.

The advantage for the roadside assist companies is that they are operating in only one country . . . It is the Eurocontrol that has to change and become a TRUE European control.

However, since some states are still clinging to the wreckage of their airlines (Italy) and many others have misplaced misunderstanding of Europe (UK), we are going to have to wait for more consolidation of carriers.
Had AF/KLM picked up AZ then it would have been a starting point. All of this will happen, it's only a question of when.

(Thanks Glf, my work pattern has changed now and I only use LTN for domestic, such as IOM this Friday)

[demomonkey]

I saw this kind of technology used in a film and it worked there. The film was "Dr Strangelove" and the equipment was called CRM114. I can't see any pitfalls at all. Well as long as no one is firing missiles at your B-52 that is.

[derekl]

Non professional barging in here . . .

The seemingly redundant words at the beginning of a radio transmission ("Good morning", "Hello, director" and so on) are very important in one respect: it's well understood that the human ear takes a syllable or two of speech to attune or synchronize to a particular voice. It is sensible not to impart vital information in the first one or two words of a message.

After all, that's why you wouldn't say "Pan" or "Mayday" only once -- if you could help it :uhoh:

[Bengerman]

A small problem, easily got around if one pretends that one is a pilot!!

Cause of problem? Often ATC verbosity ie.........

"ABC 123 ready to start"

"ABC123 confirm FULLY READY?"

(sigh) "ABC 123 confirm FULLY READY!!!!"

or hows about

"ABC 123 maintain flight level 330 on reaching"

What the **** else would we do?

[PENKO]

I love the French:

pilot: Reims good morning, XYZ123, FL390 to RESMI
French ATC: Good morning XYZ123, radar contact, maintain FL390 to RESMI

Duh!
(or is there some rule that I do not know about?:})

[millerman]

As one who uses datalink every working day I can say that it is a useful system but no way can it be relied upon or used as some previous posters have suggested.
Sometimes messages aren't received other times they don't get there in time. The system allows up to 2 minutes before it times out. This is ok over the atlantic or other great expanses of airspace where there is nothing in the way, but in central Europe 2 minutes is a very long time. Especially when the pilot has to read, interpret and react! Using the old voice communication method takes seconds - I don't think many pilots would be happy stuck at Fl250 requesting Fl390 because we couldn't guarantee they would get the message in time:eek: Datalink is perfect for frequency and squawk changes and issuing direct routes but for separation it is not good enough:uhoh:
I heard a good analogy - Datalink is like text messaging, fine for arranging to meet your mates down the pub later on (send an SMS) But if you needed an ambulance you would make a phone call ( voice communication) not a text:ok:

[ChristiaanJ]

derekl,
Thanks. Same I was saying. Glad I'm not alone.

[ATC Watcher]

PENKO : I love the French:
pilot: Reims good morning, XYZ123, FL390 to RESMI
French ATC: Good morning XYZ123, radar contact, maintain FL390 to RESMI
Duh!
(or is there some rule that I do not know about?)
PENKO is online now Report Post Reply

and your point is ???:confused:


as to existing FANS 1A Data link, as Millermann said , and I as well , it is not suitable for dense European continental airspace for tactical control for many reasons and has been recognized as such.

The only technologies for me that might help us reduce R/T in the future in that area is a combination of ATN D/L and ADS-B with transfer of some ATC tasks to the cockpit. But this is at least 10 years ahead, if not 20.

[Flying Guy]

Derekl,

You said,

"The seemingly redundant words at the beginning of a radio transmission ("Good morning", "Hello, director" and so on) are very important in one respect: it's well understood that the human ear takes a syllable or two of speech to attune or synchronize to a particular voice. It is sensible not to impart vital information in the first one or two words of a message."

Your point about the one or two words to "tune your ear" is fine and I don't object. But we usually start with the name of the sector we are talking to such as "Lumpur Control" or "Chennai control." That, I believe, serves the purpose you mention without putting the "good morning / good afternoon" greeting in front of it, wasting frequency time in a busy environment. Hey, I don't intend to beat this dead horse to death and I admit, it is a personal pet peeve. But I do believe it is an example of using too much unnecessary verbiage as I mentioned in my first post.

No problem with me though IF THE FREQUENCY IS NOT BUSY to start with a friendly "GOOD MORNING," I suppose. You won't hear me do it though. (Used to earlier in my career.) I pride myself these days on keeping my transmissions as brief as possible while imparting the NECESSARY information.

To reinforce my point, rarely do you hear pilots broadcasting on HF start with "Good morning." Those limited frequencies are way too busy for friendly radio calls full of superfluous information. Seems to me we ought to start treating VHF communications the same way.

Guess I am just getting grumpy in my old age.