Delta 777 Crew at Gatwick - Gash or what?

[beaver eager]

Sitting in the queue at the holding point for 26L at Gatwick yesterday I witnessed the most amazing thing....

A Delta 777 crew just ignoring an instruction to cancel their take off clearance.

Their first mistake was being unbelieveably slow to line up, partly because they weren't holding at the holding point they'd actually been cleared to but a 777s length short and round a 90 degree turn and secondly just plain old fashioned going slowly. (You've got to do better than this when there's only one runway chaps!)

Anyway, just after they'd spooled up the engines, the tower controller realised it was getting a bit tight for the Avro RJ on about a 2 mile final and said "Delta XXX, cancel take off clearance".

The 777 had just started moving, about 15kts max, but the reply was

"Uh... Wer're rolling"

And they just carried on as if nothing had been said.

The tower controller was as cool as a cucumber and just asked the Avro RJ crew if they were happy to continue and land after the 777 on the roll had departed, which they were and it just worked out allright. But they had Hobsons choice anyway as a go-around at that point may not have been much safer!

My colleague and I just looked at each other... We were totally gob-smacked that a 777 crew with a Major would totally ignore a direct and safety critical ATC instruction from the control tower regarding a take off clearance.

I'd be scared for my job (and my life) ignoring stuff like that. The only thing we could think of in mitigation was maybe if Delta SOPs may have prevented them from accepting that instruction once rolling, but I can't really see that being the case - a 777 must be able to abandon even at V1 (just like any other aeroplane) and anyway just suppose there had been a helicopter or tug crossing the runway that the tower controller had previously forgotten about! He hadn't said why the clearance was cancelled.

Not having much knowledge of operations at over 45 tonnes, begs the question whether abandoning from 30 knots or so in a 777 would be enough to burst tyres etc. and make them have to delay by much? I can't really go for that as an excuse either though!

[Foxxy]

Same thing happened to us at the identical point you are talking about on 20th Oct 2000, but even better, they were at least 30-50 ft over the hold @ A2 when tower cleared a Gulf Air 330 to line up and they did not think they were going to get past, and all we hear over the com is "left a bit , left a bit" OK you will clear now, sorry for that!

[2 and 70]

Saw the same amount of "professionalism" last autumn. A US carrier (can't remember which) 767 was cleared to line up, which it did on 08R and when cleared to take-off sat there until the tower hinted that he wanted them to go at which point they replied, "Err, 'scuse me Sir, we are waiting for wake turbulence separation for the previous departing heavy...." Can't remember the exact reply from tower, but he wasn't happy!

2 and 70

PS - I have to say, I think LGW has some of the best controllers in the world. Second to none - and with a sense of humour!! Keep it up guys and gals!

[SKYDRIFTER]

NAUSEATING -

The disregarded 'hold' instruction is additionally indicative of the CRM standard. That's worth paying attention to, in light of CRM failures being behind all but the EA-990 crash in the U.S. airlines for approximately the last five years.

[Huck]

One thing we do know - these boys passed the Delta psych exam.

[crewrest]

Usually heard in 123.45 (North Atlantic)

'Gander Gander..'

'Got any, uh, ride reports..'

'Hey, anyone got the Yankees score..'

'Hey, yur looking kinda cool there 1000 above..'

[BahrainLad]

GF at LGW?

Interesting...

[SFly]

crewrest, what are you on about?

[crewrest]

Sorry SFly, I'm refering to the sort of drivel you have to listen to from the American carriers on the North Atlantic every night on the 'listening out' frequency

It was just a rant, I'm perfect of course :)

[ExSimGuy]

The only Mid-East carrier that I know of using LGW is EK - during the summer. If GF are running into Gatwick now, I'll fly them in preference to the others as it's nearer home for me!

------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!

[Airbubba]

Hey, we're just a bunch of country boys tryin' to earn a livin'!

We'd come over to the UK to fly but we could never pass the exams, learn proper R/T procedures, or take the massive cut in pay <g>...

After the usual Yank bashing thread, the next one will be "how do I get a green card?"

[smith]

Airbubba:

Very well put. Will you please post your last message on the other Yank bashing threads, such as the Spy Plane vs. Chinese ones.

[This message has been edited by smith (edited 21 April 2001).]

[Former_SLUF_Driver]

I thought we're all in this thing together?

Some of our pilots may not be akin to the Red Arrows but at least we try to be safe.

I would be real curious to know all of the story on the DAL 777 missed comm. @ Gatwick.

We've got some old fogies pushing bigfoot across the pond, but ain't a one of'em deaf. All our Senior Grey hair could hear a mouse break wind in a crowded union hall @ 1,000 yards.

SLUF

[This message has been edited by Former_SLUF_Driver (edited 21 April 2001).]

[beaver eager]

Airbubba and smith,

You must have a guilty conscience guys....

I didn't start this as a Yank bashing thread. It would have been just as astounding a lack of airmanship had a crew from anywhere done the same.

Do I take it that you're condoning their action then? Perhaps you'd care to elucidate... I obviously need some enlightenment.

[Goody2shoes]

Is US operating standard based on R/T procedures then? It is a different style, of which I have heard UK crews based in the USA quickly adopt, for obvious reasons(very busy, more than one runway). As far as CRM, we have to thank the Atlantic Barons a little for that.

[Herb]

Hey Beaver..Did you read Crew rests posts???
They were definitely nationality specific!

It's very dangerous reporting "actual" occurrences on this forum. Please report them to the authorities or Chirp.

[777_Driver]

Eager

Cant say too much about all the other waffling going on here but if you have the Autobrakes in RTO on a 777 and you abort the take off before 85 knots they wont kick in you will have to brake manually. They are only active once the aircraft exceeds 85kts. So in answer to burst tyres - No he wouldnt have got burst tyres

[TowerDog]

Well, yes some of us are slow to line up.
We may have to finish a check list and/or apply power slowly so as not to blow away a smaller plane behind.

Then if a Cleared for Take-Off clearance is cancelled after we are rolling, uh we are rolling, did ya say: Reject, Abort, Stop or Abandon Take-Off?

No, we won't blow no tires for a low speed abort, but we were cleared for take-off and we are in the middle of it and will not stop unless we are told to:

(A cancelled t/o clearence should come before brake release, not in the middle of the t/o?)

Any ATC guys out there?



------------------
Men, this is no drill...

[THINALBERT]

Hate to admit it but Towerdog raises a very valid point.

Not having witnessed the incident, its only possible for me to speak generally, but once you are cleared to take off and are actually rolling ATC should not cancel that clearance as they are not aware of whats happening in the flight deck wrt v speeds etc.

Anyone from LGW ATC care to comment?

[Old King Coal]

...... and this is to say nothing of the wags with portable tranceivers who think it's smart / clever / funny to issue instructions to aircraft from some hidden vantage point, e.g. the NOTAMS for EMA have an almost permanent warning w.r.t. this !

[DownIn3Green]

As a former ATCO, both in the tower and Approach/Departure control, the only approved phraseology for stopping an aircraft once it has been issued a takeoff clearance is: "(Flt No.) cancel takeoff clearance (reason if applicable)". A controller cannot instruct a pilot to "Abort", "reject" or use any other "pilot type word" as the controller is not rated in the a/c and is not aware of what is going on in the cockpit, as stated in a post previously.

By the reply:"We're rolling" the DL flt is acknowledging they received the ATC instruction, and unless in the judgement of the Pilot In Command the safety of the flight would be compromised by stopping the t/o, then he must stop, as his ATC clearance is cancelled, and he is technically deviating from his clearance by using his emergency authority. If in fact they had just spooled up and released brakes then there should have been nothing to prevent them from retarding the thrust and rolling out slowly. If their speed was only 10 or 15 knots as stated, they most likely wouldn't have had to do the RTO brake cooling exercise, etc.

Having said that, there was a very good leaflet out several years back regarding the single runway operation at LGW. It was produced by the BAA and in one of my previous jobs where we were training former Soviet/Latvian pilots to operate to Western Standards, we operated into LGW daily from Latvia. This leaflet was mandatory reading for all of our pilots. It outlined suggested procedures for maximizing the acceptance rate of LGW's single rwy. I wonder if it's still around, and if so, it needs to be dissiminated to the DL crews.

As a final suggestion, maybe if DL was put in the "penalty box" for it's next 8 or 10 departures or arrivals it would get their chief pilot's attention and he could then inform his troops that they must learn to play nice with others or they will continue to receive "time outs" at LGW. (particularily effective on the inbound after a 9 or 10 hour crossing)

[This message has been edited by DownIn3Green (edited 22 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by DownIn3Green (edited 22 April 2001).]

[SKYDRIFTER]

I SAID "CANCEL" -

The reality is that almost anyone can stop a takeoff and the flying pilot usually would do best to listen.

Until the aircraft approaches V1, the takeoff can be aborted.

From a pilot's perspective, the tower is assumed to have extremely valid information, especially that early in the takeoff roll.

I would assume that the matter is being discussed with the various parties at an official level.

The penalty box is a good idea, followed by the question, "Verify that you have adequate fuel for departure."

The sad part of it is that is extremely bad PR for American pilots.

It would not surprisae me to one day see the European authorities tell the FAA to get the 'Yanks' up to a professional level or quit sending them over without a qualified European observer on the jump seat.

[Goody2shoes]

Elitism at it,s best,what chance have you got against a tie and a crest..

[Warped Factor]

Not Gatwick tower valid, but was at Heathrow until moving to LATCC.

ATC can and indeed do cancel take-off clearances after they have been issued, though obviously you don't try and do it 5kts before V1.

To clarify the phraseology, in the UK, its....

Aircraft stationary "C/S hold position, cancel, I say again cancel take-off-acknowledge"

Aircraft moving "C/S stop immediately-I say again C/S stop immediately-acknowledge"

Must say it's a brave pilot that keeps going having received either at a time when it is still easy to stop, there's usually a compelling reason for ATC to say it.

WF.

[dallas dude]

Beaver,

Have to raise the BS flag here regarding yank finger pointing. You could have made the same point without including the carrier, asking "why a B777 would dawdle along?" and probably got some real (useful) info.

I'm not condoning this crew's actions, I wasn't there.

(A reason I've had to wait before is 'cos some idiot pax has decided to repack their overhead bin during the taxi out and we've had to wait for them to sit down again.)

As for the penalty box, be careful what you ask for. We're all WELL paid by the minute. You might get the US carriers wanting to be sent there for a nice little bonus.

Seriously though, I find taxying to be the most demanding part of the job. Most folks know their home airport like the back of their hand. Unfortunately, they're the first to s****** at some other "foreign" crew feeling their way around for the first time.
Despite standardisation, every airport has its anomolies. There is a certain pace expected of regular operators. For whatever reason, this crew may not have recognised Gatwick's.

Beaver, come to ORD and show me how it should be done.

I'll supply the tea and medals.

dd

[TowerDog]

Warped Factor:

So the "Cancel T/O clearance" was indeed not appropriate then as the a/c was rolling?
Hmm, perhaps Delta also knew that?

What good would it have done to have kept the 777 in position anyway?
To have the plane on a 2 mile final fly over and land ahead of the 777.
I don't think so.

ThinAlbert: Why did ya hate to admit I had a valid point?
Have I stepped on yer toes in the past?.. :)

------------------
Men, this is no drill...

[This message has been edited by TowerDog (edited 22 April 2001).]

[Warped Factor]

TowerDog,

I'd be surprised if the crew concerned were fully up to speed on the subtleties of UK phraseology.

And as we weren't there nor have heard the tapes we can't be exactly sure what was said either.

I'd imagine the controller was planning to send the inbound around as it looked like it wasn't going to work, hence the aim of stopping the departure from getting airborne. Landing over the 777 would certainly not have been an option.

A late missed approach with a conflicting departure getting airborne isn't going to make anyone's day.

WF.

[TowerDog]

Warped Factor:

Yes, indeed it would not have made anybody's day.

In fact a similar but reverse situation occured at JFK a few years ago:

A Tower Air B-747 was taking off and at the same time BA B-747 was executing a missed approach to another runway.
The BA machine did not follow the missed approach procedure and the Tower Air plane had to bank sharply away to avoid a low altitude mid-air collision.
It was really close and all over the news next day.
The Tower Air captain got some kind of award for his quick action that saved the day.

Don't remember any Brit bashing as a result of it.

The above BA pilots on PPRuNe by any chance? If so, what is your side of the story?

(Also would like to hear the Delta pilots version of the story on this thread)

------------------
Men, this is no drill...

[This message has been edited by TowerDog (edited 22 April 2001).]

[Goody2shoes]

if it's different it's not right, it's silly or stupid..(all that rugby puts hairs on your chest)....
I have seen UK crews screw up in the US especially with taxi instructions at ORD. Pen wasn't poised to copy,even sent to the penalty box after a couple of wrong read backs,wrong turns. Who started this anyway?

[whats_it_doing_now?]

Lets face it, we can argue about the correct r/t phraseology, the correct actions by the pilot, the company sop's, brake cooling blah blah blah. The truth is the incident would never have happened if the guy had pulled up to the correct position at the holding point, and lined up promptly. It comes under that old-fashioned word 'airmanship' that is understood on both sides of the atlantic...

[deltagreek]

Gentlemen,
a large number of the ppruners are pilots ourselves! We are talking about a heavy during it's takeoff roll! No one knows what was going inside that cocpit, what kind of MEL items might apply, or if the PNF simply didn't understand the tower. The fact remains, during a takeoff roll, unless something clearly happens (emphasis on the clearly),that jeopardizes flight safety, only and only then will a pilot abort. A garbled (possibly?) call from the tower demands a split second descision and not a full blown discussion in the cocpit ( What did he say?, was that for us?). In any case, I have yet to fly with a pilot who willingly violates ATC instructions! Futher more, the fact that he was holding short not on the yellow line but from what I gather before that final turn, might indicate that he might have some problem that he was trying to sort out and wanted to give him a way out in case it didn't get sorted?
Or if all else fails to convince the inquisitive, how about good old fashioned screw up! Show me a pilotot that is not guilty!
Let's not start jumping to generalizations, what do you think!

[fire wall]

This thread did not start as an American bashing affair but it took little time for some of you to show your true ilk.

Just exactly what is it about the Americans that gives you Brits such a hard on. Do you guys like anyone? You hate the Germans, ridicule the French,poke fun at the Spanish and Greeks (the EU has no chance!), and continually attempt to put down the Australians. Most hillarious is listening to your RAF boys tell how much better they are, how much better trained they are, how much better their a/c are ... than the Americans. Do they teach you such Xenophobic attitudes whilst you are still in nappies and just where the hell do you get off !

I am sorry the Empire is but a mere quaint story to tell by the fireside on a typically cold wet London night but for God's sake get over it.

[411A]

Fire Wall--
They will NEVER get over it, time does pass, but not in the UK. When was the last time you heard on the tower frequency in the USA,..."cancel takeoff clearance" when the heavy aircraft is rolling down the runway? Think the ATC guys in Gatwick need to be sent back to school, for proper training.

[dallas dude]

411a

Once again you demonstrate the juvenile attitude that gladly I'll never have to suffer on your flight deck.

Gatwick works just fine (considering its limitations) without your snide advice.

Some folks may not be quite up to speed. Important to remember the ones we laugh at today will be the ones laughing at us, at "their" airport, tomorrow.

Thank heavens you've retired.

I doubt many miss you.

dd

[Meridianman]

The way I understand it here in the USA the correct R/T phraseology for a controller to use in order to stop an aircraft that has begun its takeoff is “Abort, abort, abort”.

“Canceling” a takeoff clearance can only be done before the takeoff is started. Once the aircraft is moving it’s an “abort”.

Sooooooooooo maybe that was what the DAL 777 chaps were thinking.

What’s the correct R/T phraseology in the UK?

BTW. Did I understand the DAL 777 was not moving fast enough? What happened to safety, “Those Ryan chaps are taxiing too fast.” and all that guff?

[411A]

Dallas Dude--
Have been flying in and out of the UK since 1974, longer than you I think. They NEVER change. And, not retired yet, several years to go.

[Compliant One]

Just a little observation to anyone who wants to listen iso transmit!

777 has a very long fuselage and wheelbase. As a consequence, it's turning circle is quite large even with the steerable aft axle on the main bogeys.

Ever since the C150, I was taught to always stop when taxiing with the nosewheel straight to avoid stress on the undercarriage.

At many airports with 90 degree taxiways at the holds, it is impossible to taxi far enough forward to relieve the stress on all the undercarriage.

Maybe it was airmanship that made the Captain hold short of the 90 degree turn to the hold that day. I know that I do it at about 50% of airports. I am, however, aware that it takes longer to be ready and adjust my procedures accordingly.

Compo

PS I don't fly in either country.

[Former_SLUF_Driver]

This one has turned into a “mines bigger than yours” thread.

Fortunately, all the Europeans I personally know are likeable types. I have enjoyed many an evening of drinking, dining and hanger flying with them while ashore in their fine countries and on occasion stateside when we meet up with a layover and invite them to the table for drinks and talk.

Going all the way back to my Navy days forward to the present I have only fond memories of the times and conversations spent with my fellow flyers.

There is no one here among us who has not messed up in one way or another while performing our duties and for those elite few who have yet to mess up, well enjoy cuz your day is fast approaching.

Hell just the other day a European company took a wrong turn @ MCO and wound up at the wrong airside, did we call in a half-dozen A-10’s out of Moody to clobber him with reckless abandon? Nope.

Ground just said, “Whoops! Hold up there for a sec.”
Squeezed us passed them and then got them to where they needed to go.

I’ve never been to Gatwick, but I would venture a guess it’s no worse than some of the nightmares we have over here. Anyone ever been to Washington National? Disneyland on the Potomac I tell you…
Or how about LAX or SFO during crunch time? Madness I tell you!

Or, since I’m talking of airports, anyone fly into Central America? Now there is the true meaning of ATC
(A)ttempt
(T)o
(C)reate confusion.

Fly safe brothers and sisters were all in this thing together!

SLUF

[Diesel8]

Skydrifter,

If I posted a reply to your post, I would be banned for a long time, simply not worth it, get the drift.



[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 23 April 2001).]

[fire wall]

411A, I am afraid you miss my point. I made no mention of Gatwick ATC and have never had a problem with them. I just tire of the junenille xenophobic debate that is more often than not put foward by the Brits in an attempt to belittle others.

[777_Driver]

One more comment I would like to add regarding lining up.

We also fly the 777-300 (stretch version) and it's pointed out in our line training that if you do not have enough space to straighten the nosewheel with the aircraft straight at a holding point,then hold short of any 90 degree turn onto a runway.

It is pushed as good airmanship, saves a lot of stress on the aircraft gear and also saves serious amounts of tyre scuffing.

Sounds to me this guy was doing the same thing we do. It is ok do a tight 90 degree turn in a 727/737 even 757 but it is nigh on impossible to do this on a 777. you can sometimes get away with it on the 777-200 but I have never flown from Gatwick so I do not know how short the distance was.

Hope this was some help

PS Lets not get into slagging off the Yanks or the controllers at Gatwick. We are all professional guys (or at least try to be!) So come on chaps we are all pilots at the end of the day, all with that same sparkle in our eye. does it matter what country we reside?

[SKYDRIFTER]

HOLD ME BACK, HOLD ME BACK; I'LL KILL HIM! -

Diesel8 - Please illustrate my ignorance. Maybe I missed something. I'll promise you that I don't have all the answers.

Please ensure events are discussed, as I'd hate to see the thread killed for personality exchanges.

[Ignition Override]

Come on now guys and gals. Former Sluf Driver seemed to describe the big picture.

There is no reason for this subject to provoke a feeling of defensiveness, nor justify personal criticisms. Maybe just shake hands, ask tactful questions and try not to drink more than one (semi-cool, delicious) Newcastle Brown Ale, or a (cold, tasty) Miller Genuine Draft etc before reading Pprune! Heck, next to each other in a pub/bar/cafe, y'all would definitely be more diplomatic and learn more from each other. IF it is normal to avoid tarring another person's home country in person, using sweeping generalizations, why start it on good old Pprune? It just make Captain Danny's (and staff's) job harder.

Heck, I don't know about y'all, but no matter whether a Ju-88, B-26, "Betty", Sturmovik or Lancaster (FOUR Spitfire engines-what a wonderful sound!), Mig-27...comes on the Discovery Wings Channel, it's aviation that interests me-not the flag or insignia.

Maybe wait until more facts about the Gatwick incident are published?

[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 23 April 2001).]

[Huck]

We are the world.....,
We are the children...... (C'mon, everybody!)
;) ;) ;) ;)

[yakkity]

I will do this without mentioning Carriers or Nationalities, but i will mention aircraft types....this is a very brief account of an actual happening!
Who is right in this case?
A330 lined up and ready to depart...inbound B747... A330 VERY slow to take up power and roll when given Take off.... B747 instructed to "go around"... however elected to land off the approach as he "was happy"...conclusion: almost 2 aircraft on the runway at the same time.(No land after or such like allowed)
Ok , this is not meant to open a debate on the climb out hassles this might have produced or any such like , but mearly to point out a disregard to an ATC instruction!
So who is at fault?

[SKYDRIFTER]

BOTTOM LINE -

1. Let's assume that the B-777 DID elect to ignore the takeoff cancellation.

2. The U.S. FARs are clear on non-commpliance with ATC instructions.

3. The FAA went to the trouble of writing the infamous "Intrepreterpative Rule," which says that the FAA reserves the right to uniquely accuse, try and convict pilots INDEPENDENTLY OF THE N.T.S.B. AUTHORITY. So far, the rule applies ONLY to the ATC compliance FAR.

4. That "intrepretative rule" has not been challenged and/or struck down.

5. Add the element of the "Sky Nazi" emergency revocation of licenses that the FAA is so fond of, and has come to use with increasing frequency.

Given the above (assuming the event happened as described), the pilots could be in deep 'stuff.' That is the single rule that U.S. pilots should NEVER monkey with.

Now, go to the practice of U.S. carriers failing to issue the FARs or teach them - as required by the FARs themselves. The pilots - with ALPA silence - are BSed to think that their Operations Manual is an equivalent of the FARs - WRONG, bloody WRONG.

Is there a picture forming????

If not, go to AK-261. The pilots were obviously ignorant of FAR 121.627 which states that a diversion to an airport due to mechanical failure is an emergency in every respect, invoking the captain's emergency authority of FAR 121.557. The AK-261 pilots had a dramatic flight control problem on their hands and they begged Despatch for permission to land. Despatch made them do their own landing coordination with the company in LAX.

The AK-261 pilots clearly didn't know the FARs - eighty-eight people needlesly died a horrible death. Now, there's another classic in Al Gore's "redefining government."

Pay attention to the U.S. news. The government is spending billions to facilitate airline efficiency and nothing for the safety issues.

Conversely, the FAA is allowing increasing latitude to deviate from safety regulations, so long as profits result - such action being sponsored from Washington D.C..

In the U.S. the FAA is absolutely famous for their commission of felonies to facilitate airline profits. The FAA managers and lawyers CAN'T be touched, even with a clearly deteriorating situation.

I sincerely hope that the 'reality check' doesn't offend anyone.

[javelin]

Brief point about the operations of these types of airplanes. I fly the 330 and we also have similar restrictions about not turning a corner unless you can straighten the nosewheel - it is even more important on the 330 because we don't have rear wheel steering and it does stress the gear. Also our engines (RR) have slow spool up to give stall/surge protection, it gives the impression from the inside or outside of a very slow acceleration - perhaps the 777 is similar. Regarding the allegation of not stopping, tricky call due to a variety of things. I have had plenty of cases in the States where we have been told something on the radio but not fully understood it because of either accent, colloquial phrase or similar. If ATC want you to stop, they should use that word - it is one word that we both use !

[porpoise]

I find this constant ridiculing of the U.S. pilots annoying. It's the same on the atlantic. they may go on a bit on the chat channels but thats what they are there for. there is an emergency channel for really important messages. And you are right. It is usually an ex-RAF guy, puffed up with there own sense of invincibility that is at the heart of it. I've flown with many ex RAF pilots and they seem to show the same variance in ability as everyone else, but ask them and there is only one way to fly and only one group that can do it.

[ClearDirect]

Perhaps it would benefit us all to look at the cause of this discussion, rather than it's result.
Due to national differences, it is still possible to misinterpret ATC instructions depending on where you come from, and where you operate.
That this can occur with English speaking crew in an English speaking environment allows one to speculate about crews speaking language A in country B neither of which has English as their native tongue.
The whole raison d'etre of ICAO standardisation is that even if you are in a "foreign" environment you know exactly what to expect in terms of phraseology and procedures.
When you have conflicts in phraseology and procedures in two major English speaking communities, how on earth can you expect compliance from the rest of the world?
Let us not get carried away with the symptom, rather than the cause.
There is another area in which I think it is high time that standardisation take place-that is taxiway marking and lighting.
The high number of taxiing errors from pilots at "unfamiliar" airports shows that there is room for improvement in this area too.


------------------
lost in hold.

[This message has been edited by ClearDirect (edited 23 April 2001).]

[Joaquín]

ClearDirect
I think you got the point. I also think that there are two different issues:

1.- Standard phraseology must be enforced everywhere to avoid incidents. In this respect, for instance, I know in US r/t "take-off" is used for situations other than clearances, something I thought was not permitted since the Tenerife accident (where I am from, btw). But please, don't take this
as a xenophobic comment, just an observation.

2. Some attitudes must change in the cockpit and in the tower. Another example: in Cuatro Vientos (Madrid) I was flying with an instructor and we were cleared to align, I saw there was an a/c on finals and told the instructor I was going to reject the clearance, he acknowledge the a/c on finals but told me that it was the tower's mistake and he proceed to align, causing the inbound to go around, and then openly critisizing the controller.

It is true that they make mistakes in the tower, but it is also true that the pilot should be aware of the situation around and take the necessary precautions. Safety depends on every one.

For this incident, some lessons need to be lernt after having ALL the facts, not to blame any particular party, but to improve safety.

PS: I'm tired of xenophobic attitudes in these forums. Please, refrain from expressing your ignorance and prejudices.

Fly safely

[dallas dude]

Cleardirect,

Agree 100% with the taxiway marking comment.

I have to say I have the LEAST problems at Canadian airports.

They're not drastically different from the FAA's stle but they do seem a bit easier to interpret (esp at night).

My last 2c

dd

[HugMonster]

CD, I agree with you 100% on markings. CDG have admitted that ICAO specs are not sufficient, and are installing extra signage due to the recent rapid increase of runway incursions there. Dublin is another problem airport from this aspect.

I also agree with the comment above about using standard phraseology.

Unfortunately, point out non-standard R/T to another pilot, and mostly they will accuse you of being "picky". Witness some of the comments seen here in the past about calles being made such as "(ATC Unit), it's the Speedbird nnn..." or "FL260 for the Speedbird..." etc. etc.

Lazy R/T leads to accidents. Face it. Listen to yourself t/xing. And recognise your verbal ticks, try to avoid them. Don't adopt a complacent attitude, but since we're all supposed to be professionals, have a professional attitude to all your work.

This plea goes out to everyone - Brits, Yanks, French - everyone. Poor R/T was a significant contributor to the worst aviation accident ever. It's time to stop it.

[G-BPEC]

Some interesting points raised here, but because there is a distinct lack of information as to what actually happened it is impossible to reach a conclusion- it seems likely that the Delta pilot misinterpreted the instruction, or didn't fully understand it, in which case it should have been queried, but when you're in the take off roll, there's enough to do already without having a conversation with ATC. Is it possible he misheard the instruction? I know its a long shot but it is a possibility, especially with the nature of the reply he gave. It seems unlikely that ANY pilot would deliberately violate an ATC instruction, especially in such a critical stage of flight, but who knows?

[CRP5]

Saw the above incident also, I do not really care what nationality did what when or where, I understand the workload is high but it was a clear instruction and it was gash on the part of the 777 crew not to stop, as to the legalities of ATC instructions and what phraseology they use I am not qualified to comment, but to me "cancel T/O " means just that!

[ortotrotel]

"Gob-smacking"...."xenophobic"...

And to think I had the gall to imagine I had command of the English language...

[Diesel8]

Skydrifter,

Fortunately for me Pprune Towers has more class than I.

Yes, I am quite happy to discuss the issues at hand, although as usual, xenophobic attitudes again rears it ugly head. As someone else pointed out, a typical "mine is bigger than yours" argument.

I took offense to your remark, that you think the CAA needs to have EU (dare I say Brits) on the jumpseat of US airliners operating in to "the Empire known as England".

Most of us, might I say the majority, were not there and so everything we have is hearsay and third hand info. It would be callous for the DL777 to continue his takeoff, once clearance has been cancelled. As someone else mentioned, the FAA as well as the CAA, does not look kindly on such incidences, so I would venture a guess and say that it was not a deliberate act.

Certain post here make it sound like the crew willfully disregarded an ATC instruction, some even venture so far as to make nationality an issue. Of course, mistakes are made regardless of nationality, background, training and hours. So as someone has mentioned, here we have an opportunity to discuss R/T phraseology around the world and improve upon it, which would improve aviation safety for all of us.

[foghorn]

I've read this thread through a couple of times, and unless there's been serious editing in the time since some responses were made, the only post that could in any way be perceived as 'Yank bashing' was a slightly tongue-in-cheek one made by Crewrest back on page one.

firewall, 411A, porpoise, et al.

You guys are a bit trigger-happy aren't you? Or maybe just looking for an excuse to Brit-bash? Xenophobia works both ways, folks.

Seems like it's a good example of how easy it is to hear what you want to hear rather than what is being said, the way you guys have jumped in all guns blazing to some perceived insults that haven't actually been made? Possibly this sort of communication breakdown is an explanation for our Delta 777 crew at Gatwick? Makes you think.

[SKYDRIFTER]

DIESEL8 -

I was not the one to originate this post.

Obviously the underlying theme stems from the assumption that the original post is highly credible.

Thus, I made my assertions.

If the original post is nonsense, the matter is not mine.

If the original post is factual, something needs to be addressed.

In any case, this post addresses some highly pertinent issues worthy of professional consideration - with your permission, I hope. Please note that I am not alone in my opinions.

Your call.

[Diesel8]

Skydrifter,

Never have I met such a knowledgeable, erudite and esteemed gentleman as yourself.

I bow in thy presence, for you, Sire, would certainly never succumb to the frailities of mind that at times inflict upon this humble aviator.

I shall refrain from posting any voice of reason that may contradict your skillfull deduction of the truth in this matter. Who am I to argue with such an enlightened person as you.

Repspectfully yours etc,

D8

[SKYDRIFTER]

D8-

Wottaguy!

[DEFPOTEC]

In the USA a takeoff is called a “preplanned maneuver”. Once an aircraft commences a takeoff, the word “ABORT” must be use by the controller to terminate the maneuver.

What the Delta 777 crew did would be the correct thing to do in the USA. Once they started to move their takeoff clearance cannot be canceled. The controller has to call an ABORT.

(Whenever a takeoff is aborted the controller must list the reason for the abort. It better be a good reason too.)

I don’t know the UK ATC procedures for stopping an aircraft once it has started its takeoff.

I take it UK controllers don’t use the word ABORT. Is that correct?

Up to what point can they cancel a takeoff clearance?

With no way of knowing the speed of the aircraft or its V1 can they cancel a takeoff clearance above V1?

How about a landing? Can they cancel a landing clearance after the aircraft is on the runway?


[This message has been edited by DEFPOTEC (edited 24 April 2001).]

[brain fade]

This is an interesting one. I guess it comes down to pilot interpretation and understanding (followed by compliance with), ATC instructions. As has been shown by some U.S pilots on this thread, there is plenty of scope for misunderstanding even when both parties are speaking the same language and both hear the each other clearly. sometimes the same message means different things to different people. Add in a different language, as at Paris CDG and you are really going out to cause an accident. Last year lives lost were the crew of the Shorts SD-330 that got hit by the air liberte MD-80 at Paris. We all know that less than perfect comms or dialects or even regional variations or accents all cause vhf comms to be compromised to a greater or lessor degree. To try to alleviate the effects of this we have our 'standard' rt phraseology and the use of English as the 'international' language of the air. When will the French stop talking to french a/c in FRENCH!? As soon as these French fliers leave French airspace they have to yak away in English like the rest of us. Same flying IN to La belle France. English all the way, but French at the end. Whats the point!
Good comms requires:
1.Std language
2.Std phraseology
3.Servicable rt equipment
4. err, thats it!

How hard do we want to make it?

[SKYDRIFTER]

NOT ROCKET SCIENCE -

The instruction to 'taxi into position and hold' in Europe is typically, "...lineup."

Any more than a U.S. carrier would reject the local equivalent, they shouldn't be expected (nor have the right) to insist on U.S. ATC language for "abort."

Similarly in the U.S. if the tower wants to avoid paperwork, they will substitute "go-around" with the instruction "Climb on runway heading to 3,000; contact approach on..."

Yes, there are valid mistakes which all of us (with the exception of the FAA) would readily forgive. This doesn't sound like one of those.

I'm not advocating the official bashing (violation) of the pilots. I think non-professional attitudes and CRM failure is well worth illustrating and that participants such as those on this forum should pass along the element of professionalism. Denial and excuse-making doesn't accomplish that.

[RRAAMJET]

Sorry, chaps, but not having been there, and having re-read the original account several times, I have to say that the tower controller bears some responsibility for this, and for the spacing.

I confirmed today the 777 SOP about not making a 90 if you can't straighten the nose afterward. Also, this 777 was going to ATL, probably, so would have been pretty heavy. If there was an ATR 42 next in line, I'm sure the crew were also conscious of not blowing him away with a big sprint to the line. If he'd made a half-90, with a turned nosewheel, the power setting required to get moving again would be huge, blowing who knows where.

Also, the controller should have seen where the 777 was and realised that it would need more spacing than usual to turn on and get rolling. An "are you ready for an immediate?" call would have helped - if they can manage them at LaGuardia, they sure as heck can find time to call at Gatwick. At DFW, the tower controller will also query: "can you turn the corner?" - to give himself an idea of the situation at the hold.

Of course, the 777 is relatively new at DL, and I wouldn't be surprised if training or line checking was going on - in which case the crew could have given the tower a heads up "we need an extra minute", before t/o clearance was given.

And last, but not least, I've seen just as many c**k-ups by foreign crews in the USA, as US crews in Europe. We Brits just hate to admit it. It's just not cricket.

[West Coast]

Defpotec,
The phraseology in the U.S. is "cancel takeoff clearance" This is per the controller handbook FAA order 7110.65. Spent 14 yrs as a controller before defecting to this side of the microphone.

[Four Seven Eleven]

Being neither from the U.S. nor the U.K., the trans-Atlantic dispute here is of less relevance than the danger inherent in a situation whereby a pilot felt compelled to ignore an instruction given by the ATC.

Australian MATS states:

[b]Cancellation of take off clearances[b]

[i]6.3.8.19 An ATC decision to cancel a take-off clearance once an aircraft has commenced take-off roll should only be taken in [b]extreme circumstances when an aircraft is in imminent danger.[b] As the decision to reject take-off remains with the pilot, any instruction by ATC to cancel take-off must be accompanied by a description of the nature of the emergency.[i]

Under the circumstances described in this post, it is doubtful that there was 'imminent danger'. The 'danger' appears to have been that the landing aircraft would have to go around, although the implications of a simultaneous go-around and departure are serious enough.

Australian AIP offers the following phraseology:

ATC: [i]Hold position, cancel, I say again cancel take-off (followed by reasons)[i]
A/C: [i]Holding[i]

Or, if the aircraft is rolling:

ATC: [i[Stop immediately (repeat aircraft callsign) stop immediately (reason)[i]
A/C: [i]Stopping runway (number)[i]

If nothing else, proper use of these procedures would ensure that pilots are in no doubt as to what the ATC wants and the reason for the cancelled clearance. The pilots would then be in the best position to make a command decision for the safety of their aircraft.

Following at least one incident where a pilot ignored an instruction to stop, controllers have been made aware of the dangers of attempting to stop an aircraft once the take-off roll has commenced, particularly if the reason is not because of 'imminent danger.'

As many have already said, this highlights the need for STANDARD phraseology. There is no time in this sort of situation for interpretations and analysis.


------------------
Regards
4711

"The bulk of mankind is as well equipped for flying as thinking." — Jonathon Swift

[411A]

For the benefit of all concerned, let us hope that the controllers at Gatwick have learned their lesson with regard to the very large B777 aircraft, whomever the operator.

[Joaquín]

Interestingly, as in any "real language", R/T has a "norm" and a "use" (which may differ slightly from the first. I.e. the norm in the US for "cancel clearance" seems to be the same as in EU, but they say "abort".

It could be usefull to know of places where this divergence exists, and I'm not talking about the one-time confusion, but about where the general use changes with respect of the norm. Being Spanish, I know that the use of Spanish in Spanish Airspace is as common as French in France, and equally dangerous. The use of "take off" other than for clearance I think is common in the US (I admitt that is my short experience and I might be wrong).

The point is for all of us to be aware of the differences and, maybe take the matter further if necessary.

Fly safely

[Warped Factor]

411A,

Lets also hope that large jet operators at Gatwick have learnt to be more pro-active with ATC if and when required.

If extra time is needed for any of the reasons stated in this thread, ATC need to be told, they're not psychic.

It's a team game remember.

WF.

[FLASH 357]

Come on guys, what about airmanship ?
I might only be in charge of "light" 767
but if I`m told to stop at slow speed
I will!

[HugMonster]

I agree, Flash.

It appears, however, that some people here are prepared to insist on the correct phraseology when it suits them. As we've seen, try to correct some people's R/T and they claim you're being "picky".

However, if your engines are gently spooling up and you're rolling at about 5 knots, if ATC were to say:-

"(Callsign) slam the brakes on, sorry old chap, but I've had to cancel your takeoff"

they would be struck with inability to understand and would continue rolling...

[DEFPOTEC]

West Coast,

Welcome to the other side of the microphone and to the forum.

Here’s a link to the P/CG. You can read the meaning of ABORT yourself. http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/PCG/PCGTOC.htm It’s very clear.

If a controller uses the correct phraseology it helps remove questions of interpretation. “ABORT” has a very clear meaning. It’s clearly defined in the P/CG. “ABORT - To terminate a preplanned maneuver; e.g., an aborted takeoff.”

I think your confusion, and that of many controllers, comes from reading CANCELLATION OF TAKEOFF CLEARANCE 3-9-10
“Once an aircraft has started takeoff roll, cancel the takeoff clearance only for the purpose of safety.” It doesn’t explicitly give the proper phraseology. The controller has to get that from the P/CG.

If there was a separation problem, it would have been safer to send the traffic on final around. Aborting the departing aircrafts takeoff, a heavy jet at that, for traffic management is not what I would call “for the purpose of safety”.

If there had been a safety problem that called for an abort I am sure the controller would have been more assertive in getting the 777 to stop its takeoff.

I don’t routinely disregard the controller’s instructions but there are times when it’s the safest thing to do. Always remember who’s flying the aircraft and who has the ultimate responsibility. It’s not the nice people in the tower and it’s not the Monday morning quarterback sitting in another aircraft. The final responsibility belongs to the pilot in command.


[This message has been edited by DEFPOTEC (edited 24 April 2001).]

[Meridianman]

Look what that Delta 777 captain will make. http://www.airlinepilots.com/Labor%20Library/Labor084.htm Slag away at them if it makes you feel better. They’re laughing all the way to the bank.

[LMD]

it sounds to me like a simple case of the 777 crew thinking that ATC was cancelling their clearance because they were taking too long. the crew then informed ATC that they were rolling.

in the states (i know it didnt occur in the states)the statement "clearance cancelled" doesnt take on the same force as "abort".

[Flanker]

The FO I flew with today made the point by considering the KLM 747 at Tenerife- would he have stopped if instructed by the tower to do so?

By the way I have seen a KLM 744 stop from at least 80 kts at Amsterdam R24 after the tower cancelled their take off clearance due to a Go Around on 19R.

[West Coast]

Defpotec
FAA order 7110.65M 3-9-10
Phraseology example: Cancel takeoff clearance(reason).
I have only been out of controlling for about 18 months, but you had me questioning myself, so I called a friend who is a training specialist at a tower. He said that there was no change to the phraseology. To be absolutely sure I called another friend in the same position at another tower, he also said the same. The PCG is there for reference (from the ATC standpoint)If the FAA has established set phraseology, it is listed in the appropriate section of the 7110.65

[DEFPOTEC]

West Coast,

What kind of reference do you think the P/CG is there for? If it’s not for established phraseology then what’s it for?

Where did you find a phraseology example in 3-9-10? I don’t see one.

7110.65M Air Traffic Control (http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/ATC/index.htm)

[West Coast]

Defpotec
At the bottom of the stated paragraph, there is a bold word "PHRASEOLOGY" followed by the example "cancel takeoff clearance" (reason)
I know my words probably dont carry the authority they did when I was actually controlling, but I know the 7110.65 better than I know my companies SOP. I promise you this is the proper way. During less than peak traffic times call a local control tower (they are in the book)and ask them to verify what I am saying

[DEFPOTEC]

Ok. I yield. You win.

Have a nice day.

[Avman]

Yawn, scratch, yawn. Six pages!!! You can analyse until blue in the face but in the circumstances given in the original thread ATC's instructions were clear and there was only one VERY EASY course of action for Delta to follow: Adhere to ATC instructions!

[West Coast]

Defpotec
Did not mean for you to go away mad. Absolutely sure there is alot you could teach me, its all about education.

[beaver eager]

Well, I've been absent from the discussion for a while, a little sad that I'd started a thread that became so contentious.

I have to say that LMD's interpretation probably hits the nail on the head!

It had certainly been a long time since they were cleared for take off and probably what happened is that the controller gave the instruction to cancel the take-off clearance just as the 777 was spooling up (thereby rendering any use of the word 'abort' unnecessary as the take-off roll had technically not yet started at this point).

The crew were probably aware that their delay had been excessive and maybe thought that they were being penalised (or punished, if you like) for taking too long. A couple of sentences between them to discuss the matter and now they're at 15 kts before transmitting their reply that they were rolling (still with plenty of time to abort if the controller were to insist).

It had not previously occurred to me that in announcing that they were rolling they were maybe attempting to be helpful or even apologetic. Certainly, the controller had plenty of time to re-iterate the cancellation, or even issue an 'abort'. As he didn't do so immediatly after their response (probably still only at 30 or 40 kts) they decided it was still safe to continue which was obviously the correct decision at that point.

I suspect that the controller then had a vision of the mounting paperwork had he issued an abort, so chose to offer the RJ on short final a 'land after' clearance which was accepted and there it ended until I started this thread!

My thanks to LMD for his plausible suggestion. It can certainly go down now in my book as one of those incidents that happens to all of us regularly, where we have to make a snap decision, often a matter of interpretation, as to the best course of action. The Delta Crew almost certainly had a mindset that would have suggested to them that they were being encouraged to hurry rather than having take off cancelled for safety reasons. Their snap decision was influenced by that mindset and they probably did exactly what they believed to be the best (or most helpful) thing at the time.

It is likely that my own interpretation of the incident was influenced by a mindset of mine that the slow R/T response in an apparently relaxed southern drawl was indicative of tardiness. The likelihood now appears to suggest that the slow response was due to having discussed the matter, and the southern drawl? Well we all have an accent of some kind don't we? It looks like I need to get a life.

I stick to my initial assertion that I would instantly have complied with an instruction like that (without thinking twice) and discussed the consequences afterwards. However, the scenario above fits perfectly and all of us know that we get into strange situations with strange mindsets quite often as we go through our working lives. There's lots of ways to skin a cat and they all usually work out OK.

Benefit of the doubt now given and humble apologies offered for the suggestion of being 'Gash'.

The discussion here has broadened my outlook though and that's the true benefit of the internet and this forum in particular isn't it? Thanks Danny for providing it for us.

Every day, in every way.........

[Wino]

Just as a point of interest,

The A300-605R that I fly, if at max weight and an abort happens in any manner which activates the MAX autobrakes, it immediatedly triggers several million dollars in inspections and landing gear changes. Crews are more and more being programmed to go etc...

I don't know if it is the same for a 777...

Cheers
Wino

[DEFPOTEC]

West Coast,

I am not mad. Whatever gave you that idea?

Here’s part of the introduction to the P/CG.

“This Glossary was compiled to promote a common understanding of the terms used in the Air Traffic Control system. It includes those terms which are intended for pilot/controller communications. Those terms most frequently used in pilot/controller communications are printed in bold italics. The definitions are primarily defined in an operational sense applicable to both users and operators of the National Airspace System. Use of the Glossary will preclude any misunderstandings concerning the system's design, function, and purpose.”

“ABORT - To terminate a preplanned aircraft maneuver; e.g., an aborted takeoff.”

I am sure you are right. It’s illogical but you are right.

Affirmative – Negative – Stop – Continue – Expedite – Go around – Abort - Eject. They all have very clear meanings, don’t you think?

If the FAA wants controllers to say something different I am not a bit surprised. Nothing the FAA does could ever surprise me.

No. You win. :)

[West Coast]

Just an assumption on my part. I understand what you are saying about the PCG. Your approaching this with a pilots perspective though. I remember a few years ago I was training a fairly new controller when a pilot doing pattern work asked to back - taxi. My student who was new, young and not a pilot was a bit confused. Luckily the term had just been added to the PCG, and after looking it up knew what it meant.

[Docman]

In reply to the Delta 777 in LGW
Yes i can believe that they do taxi slow
In fact in the Delta SOP's it clearly states
that no Delta pilot may taxi any aircraft regardless of weight/size faster than a speed of 10miles/hr. None of the Delta pilots ever dare to break this rules unless they are on their retirement flight in which almost every rule in the Delta SOP's are broken.
I can understand just why they are so slow taxiing , but you must understand that they as a company are industry wide known to be very slow movers so that's an indication as to why they didn't react in time to the ATC instructions. Delta are not strangers to ATC in the UK about 10yrs ago if memory serves me correctly they landed and LHR instead of LGW. I never did find out if it was a tech problem...but if so why go to LHR when your MTC crews and relevant parts are all at LGW.
The mind boggles.

[411A]

DEFPOTEC--
You are quite correct. Some of the "younger guys" on the forum seem to forget that "Captain" is the aircraft COMMANDER, ah....but they will learn in due course.

[beaver eager]

Wino,

Surely you can retard the thrust levers at 15 kts without triggering the Max Autobraking?

At that speed, coasting down to the first exit for a 90 degree turn off should have been possible and the application of power would have been necessary to reach the first RET - all without touching the brakes manually at all.

[Wino]

Are you SURE that it was 15 knots? A long airplane looks a lot slower than it really is.

Furthermore, if it was only 15 knots, then the controller had plenty of time to reinforce the stop of the takeoff. If it was only 15 knots, and the crew said "we are rolling" ATC had plenty of time to reinforce their stop of the takeoff.

In this case then it would seam like ATC changed their mind when Delta questioned them and when they were sure that DELTA was going instead saw the opportunity to get 1 more movement out of a piece of pavement. (The UK is HUGE on maxmimum runway utilizations).

You don't automatically fly into a hill if ATC tells you, do you? Delta has the right to question them. They could have still stopped if indeed they were going that slow.

Cheers
Wino

[beaver eager]

I think that was the point I was making above Wino. I am no longer questioning why they acted the way they did, they obviously had their reasons and, as you say, ATC had plenty of time to re-confirm the cancellation and chose not to - thereby making LMD's theory quite plausible.

I'm sure it wouldn't have been any faster than 15 kts, so how about my new question... does retarding the thrust levers (sharply, if you like) at low speed cause the autobrakes to cut in?

[Wino]

In the A300 there is a speed threshold before autobrake activation. But the threshold is fairly low. 70 kts or so...

I am sure that there is a threshold for the 777 as well. I just don't know what it is.

Those numbers are suprisingly low in that I have rejected a takeoff for a relatively trivial problem in the past, airspeed barely alive and sure enough WHAM here come the auto brakes.

But if we are going with the really slow speed, then it just sounds like Delta thought the controller was just trying to prod them to move. As the controller didn't say anything else to Delta, I am sure that is exactly what happened.

Cheers
Wino

[SKYDRIFTER]

WINO -

Good point.

Assuming you are serious, the next time I get a takeoff cancellation from the tower, should I press on?

[Wino]

Skydrifter,

Not without saying anything you shouldn't.

But if this exchange is to be believed, Delta did question it and it wasn't affirmed. Phraseology may not have been perfect, but what if Delta had then aborted and now the other aircraft is cleared to land?

Cheers
Wino

[Flanker]

Getting all technical about specific wording and differences US/UK is not a defence here in my book.
What's their brief?: 'Up to 10 kts we'll stop for a master caution or a call from the tower, after that we can't be arsed stopping for anything'.
If it is a technical thing then what kind of 21'st century jet is the 777 if you can't stop from a low speed without problems?It's a pain but it's no problem.
My guess:
They speak english,they heard the call 'coz they replied to it. They knew it would be a big hassle to stop and do it all again and didn't fancy the bother.(Maybe the skipper only as the 'um' in the reply introduces some doubt, perhaps the FO wasnt too happy.)

'If' there had been an incident/accident as a result of this decision how many people would be making excuses then?
My vote= GASH

[777_Driver]

Wino,

May I refer to my previous posting here regarding the activation of autbrake RTO on the 777. The RTO function only activates when the Thrust levers are retarded to Idle and the aircraft is above 85kts.

Hope this answers your question regarding RTO activation on the 777. Also to my knowledge I am not aware of any million dollar inspection after an RTO. Only thing I can think of is the brakes heating up - However an RTO below 85 knots wouldnt cause that much of a major concern.

I dont think anyone is to blame in this recent situation.

[Wino]

Wasn't casting blame.

Was actually working around to it looked like all parties (including ATC) decide the best thing was for Delta to go.

If after Delta had questioned ATC, ATC did not respond directly to Delta. They asked the aircraft behind delta whether they wanted a land after clearence. They accepted it. What if Delta HAD slammed on the brakes at that point? Not much runway behind the Delta jet for the other aircraft to land on.

Seams to me at that point that delta Did EXACTLY the right thing and continued the roll not having any further follow up from ATC.

The A300-605R that I fly is probably at its maximum tollerances at max weight, hence the heavy inspections. I suspect the 777 was designed with a lot more growth room, so you don't have the overheating problems we have. (without brake fans running just taxing out to runway can deflate a tire.)

Cheers
Wino

[basil fawlty]

Beaver eager,

The captain of the Delta 777 probably has ten times the number of flying hours you do, and gets paid ten times as much. You seem to exude the pathetic snobbery of so many CAA/JAA licensed pilots. The guy concerned displayed AIRMANSHIP. Go away and grow up please before you post any more drivel like that.

[WonkyVectors]

I am a tower/approach controller in the uk (tho not at LGW) and I have to admit a lot of what i have read in this thread has scared the **** out of me - a pilot disobeyed a direct ATC instruction and some people seem to think it's ok!

Here's the problems as I see them;

1. The a/c was slow to taxi and roll BUT DID NOT INFORM ATC.(ie we need 30 sec's to spool up our engines etc)
2. The controller instructed the a/c to stop BUT FAILED TO USE THE CORRECT PHRASEOLOGY.
3. The a/c replied to ATC instruction (after some delay) but continued with the departure WITHOUT BEING FULLY AWARE OF THE SITUATION. (the controller does not have to give a reason for stopping an a/c - see below).
4. The controller probably thought "Oh F£$k, the b@st@rd's going anyway" and saw NO CHOICE but to talk the landing a/c into a potentially dangerous confliction - What if the 777 subsequently had a major problem and had to abort with the landing a/c now almost at touchdown?

Unless the 777 driver has bloody great wing mirrors, an ATCO licence and can read the mind of each controller and pilot within a 20 mile raduis then he MUST obey given instructions (just assume i know all the - pilot is in command blah blah etc).

Had i been the controller concerned then the pilot would have been advised of an immediate filing of an MOR (which would include, by the way, a note re my phraseology being a contributary factor), and no other 777 we be given an expeditious departure - if i can't be sure you are going to do as you are told then you can damn well wait untill the sky is empty.

One last note on the correct phraseology: in the UK, no reason is required to be given when instructing an a/c to "abort" take off, ie
(A/c stationary) - (a/c identity) hold position, Cancel - I say again cancel take off - acknowledge.
(A/c commenced take-off) - (a/c identity) stop immediately - I say again (a/c identity) stop immediately - acknowledge.

I would make one further suggestion to pilots flying to countries other than their own: learn what the particular phraseology is for safety critical instructions such as these for each country you visit.
Not only that but remember that controllers are also human and in the "heat of battle" and when the adrenaline is pumping we may not always be 100% exact in our wording. In other words, if you are told to stop, don't pi$$ around, Stop!

Ok, rant over,
Be Safe, and enjoy.

[Yellow Snow]

Basil, did you and Cybil have a fight?
I can't understand your remarks! I'm sure Beaver wouldn't have started the thread if he/she didn't think there was something constructive we could all gain from the incident.
This thread's 7 pages now and it's highlighted shedloads of views and opinions, surely that all helps our collective understanding of our industry?
As an ATCO myself I agree with Wonky; some of the things said by pilots on this thread are seriously worrying - As an ATCO you would not stop a departing aircraft unless it was bloody critical, and any pilot that ignores an instruction to do so is a risk to all of us!
I ask you all think about any recent occurrances at a large airport just north of Gatwick!
I graciously offer the soapbox to the next person :)

[tarjet fixated]

Wonky vectors,
i understand you are an ATC controller and that you have your phraseology,procedures and responsibilities on your shoulders...but we pilots have the same....and allow me to add a detail:we also have our asses on those machines.
If you told me "Flight XXX stop immediately,acknowledge" with no further explanation and my A/C was above 80kts and below V1, no visible obstacles on the runway and nothing on TCAS then sorry man...i go!

[tarjet fixated]

And if my A/C was above V1 you might ask.....well i would stop of course!!!!!
:)

[WonkyVectors]

Tarjet,
I understand and acknoweledge that at some point you as the commander of the a/c have to have the final say on whether it is safe to stop your a/c, but you must accept that just because there is nothing on tcas or on the runway does not mean it is safer to climb into the danger that I can see, rather than execute a (I presume) published and deemed safe abort proceedure.
Having said all of that, if an "abort" instruction is given so late then its all going to be in the hands of the gods anyway. But in the example that started the thread the instruction was given early enough and the incident only passed without further drama due,imho,to the quick thinking of the controller and the acceptance of the following pilot to continue into a possibly dangerous scenario.

I'd like to make on further point to the "sod it, I'm going" brigade; The relationship between pilots and controllers has to be based on confidence and trust. Confidence in each others competence and professionalism, and trust, from my point of view, in the fact that my instructions will be followed. In these days of increased traffic, when I'm getting a/c airborne in smaller and smaller gaps I HAVE to trust that if it goes pear-shaped then you will do as instructed. If I have cut it fine and I know I only have one or two "outs"' none of us can afford to be in a situation where a pilot removes those outs.

Any erosion of trust will be an erosion of safety. And separation minima are just that, minima, if a controller loses trust in pilots then I and my collegues will increase these minima with resulting delays encountered by you.

After that rant I'd like to say that on the two occasions I have found myself in similar situations the pilots have acted in an exemplary manner and our trust and confidence in each other avoided two major incidents.

Be safe, and enjoy.

[Avman]

I'm with you WonkyVectors. I'm just amazed how this thread has gone on so long with so much drivel coming from some of our pilot friends. As for tarjet fixated.....no, I will refrain from saying anything I may regret later! I say again though, the instruction - correct phraseology or not - was quite clear and the evidence is that Delta was not anywhere near V1.

[tarjet fixated]

Of course you are with him....you are also an ATC.
The point is that there are instances when pilots are legally allowed to disregard ATC instructions if they think safety is at risk (probably not in the Delta case).
Just think of TCAS RA's or unpublished company escape manouvers (or emergency turns...whatever your company calls them), you as an ATC would just see an aircraft doing something you don't really expect and the pilots will eventually tell you what they are doing but only when they have the situation under control and the time to talk to you.
This has not to be misuderstood with "i am the pilot and i do what i want" , it is just the real world and we are very happy (as we do in most of the cases) to co-operate with you but there can be instances when we have to do "strange" things and adapt to an unexpected situation the same way you then have to do.

You enjoy it too.

[WonkyVectors]

Tarjet, I agree with you, you obviously do have the final say - this was graphically brought home to me yesterday when an a/c took an avioding climb on traffic that popped up on my radar a few seconds later!
I think we both agree that, according to the facts we were given, the delta 777 was incorrect in the actions he took as at 15 kts it can hardly be safer to climb into the unknown than stopping.
My beef is, and will remain, with those who believe the pilot made the correct decision simply because it all worked out in the end.

End of rant ptIII

be safe, and enjoy. I do!

[E. MORSE]

It is an unwise decision not to follow ATC directives.

Very unproffesional handling all together.

:rolleyes:

Cheers ? NO thank you !

[tarjet fixated]

E Morse,
to me it's very unprofessional to give whatever for granted, even an ATC instruction.
I have experienced many far from perfect ATC instructions and it all worked out safely in the end after we questionned, corrected, suggested....and both sides always co-operated.
No one is perfect and everybody up there must always be on alert for mistakes.

[SKYDRIFTER]

Wino -

Missed your posting.

If you're suggesting that it's okay to second guess a tower instruction to abort, you're bloody nuts!

Once again, go to the FAA "Intrepretive Rule." Beyond the FAR and it's "normal" enforcement, the intrepretive rule says that there will be no trial. Give me a break!!

Failure to comply with an abort instruction is as insane as it gets, there's no doubting that.

Second guessing such an instruction has no excuse.

Again, I'm not for hanging the pilots. I WOULD like to see a higher standard of professionalism - with your consent, of course.

[West Coast]

Anyone given to the thought that Delta just did'nt hear the instructions to abort? There is alot of noise as the aircraft comes up on the power, along with the verbal coordination between the crew. They perhaps heard only part of what was said, or misunderstood. No one wants to give the crew the benefit of the doubt.

[LittleBubba]

West Coast: Majority of the guys that post here are brits, and if you have ever been in a cockpit with them, then you would know that they would never consider such thing, since they are perfect.

But for the rest of us, it's a hell lot easier to understand that is what most likely happend, they didn't hear the complete transmission from the tower.

[This message has been edited by LittleBubba (edited 19 May 2001).]

[Huck]

I think the PIC heard the controller's command. I think he told the SIC - "Tell 'em we're going!" Then the SIC was left with deciding what to say over the radio.

His response sounds chillingly like the last words of the SIC in Tenerife - "We are at takeoff...."

[Airbubba]

I realize that this is a very British message board, however, note how quickly a similar complaint about takeoff protocol is whisked off to Aircrew Notices when the alleged perpetrator is from the UK:


http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/013962.html

[Wino]

Skydrifter,

We disagree so much because often because to me you are living in a time gone by.

False radio communications are becoming common around the world now. Happened to me on finals at Manchester in the UK once, still happens in the US in the aftermath of the PATCO strike, plus your average kids.

millions of people are outthere with handheld radios doing any damn thing they please with them. If I hear an atc instruction that isn't perferct phraseology or isn't what I expect in the scenario I may very well question it. I certainly reserve the right to. I maintain that the Delta crew questioned and received no answer either way. I was not there, I don't know what there speed was or anything else, but in this day and age I take NOTHING for granted.

If it was serious, the second reply by the controller of "STOP THE FU***NG JET!" would have worked just fine. Got tounge tied once in the sim when we were changing company comands to initiate the abort from "Abort" to "Stop". I used exactly those words and everyone agreed it was the right thing to do and got a good chuckle.

Cheers
Wino

[steveash]

I think it is a little funny that some pilots think that just because they sre from a certain land or airline that they are better than everyone else. As far as making mistakes, I am sure we all remeber that those who don't make mistakes don't do anything.
I was in a US 767 behind the US Air plane that took too long to get going and it was as simple as wake avoidance procedure differences.
Some carriers do talk about BS over the pond but in my experience, Europeans are just as guilty.
Lets stay professional and polite to all our fellow professionals even those that screw up. You never know when you will need their help

[Yellow Snow]

AirBubba,
Which British company operate a Blue A330 into Sanford?

[This message has been edited by Yellow Snow (edited 20 May 2001).]

[Airbubba]

>>AirBubba,
Which British company operate a Blue A330 into Sanford?<<

http://www.airtours.com/airtourscom/

[Bystander]

Given the dates involved I would guess at BMI - - but, as ever, a guess can be wrong!

[Yellow Snow]

Well that link just about illustrates it perfectly!!! :)