Brazilian ATC vs. BA 249

[hamil]

Dear Colleagues,

It looks funny, but ...

Approach into Rio de Janeiro-Galeao - Flight BAW249 (ATC Audio) - 26/05/12 - YouTube

[chevvron]

The flight usually routes via Sao Paulo; is it as bad there?

[HeathrowDictator]

The crew did very well to keep their cool, it did sound rather confusing!

Am I the only one who thinks all BA FO's on the triple sound the same? Or is there just the one?!

HD

[hamil]

I've noticed so many comm failure instructions and don't understand why.

Sorry for my ignorance, but I've never seen these confusing instructions around the world, especially in congested terminals, therefore what's the standard procedure an ATC has to follow in such cases?

Thanks.

[blind pew]

Not a problem if you understand the reasoning and aren't :mad: tired.
Clearance limits and radio failure procedures became standard into RIO after a couple of CFTs - one of which got lost in the system and flew on under the belief that they were still being actively controlled until a large lump of granite stopped them in their tracks.
Perhaps the crew should have had some training in what to expect when flying into Rio.
Obviously they didn't understand the significance of being cleared to establish on the localizer either!

[blind pew]

Hamil generally depends on the efficiency of company and crew preperation.
Had a shock when I left Big Airlines and discovered that one of our European destinations mixed IFR and VFR traffic with the onus on all traffic being responsible for avoidance in VMC - put it down to The old Anglo Saxon arrogance that we do it better than everyone else and they should do the same.
The country concerned didn't use primary radar.
Made one airmiss report after seeing a cigar in a Cessna pilots mouth when leaving a holding pattern - the report said that it wasn't a traffic conflict or words to that affect.
As it happens I was reading the report in climb and glanced across to see a helium balloon about a kilometre away....

[obwan]

Well done lads, got there in the end:D

[no slots]

WTF!!!!! You boys are spoiled in the UK!

[betterfromabove]

Was the ATCO drunk? Seriously, that what it sounds like.

What's the relevance of continually repeating the radio failure procedure? Ironic, since they are in only patchy effective 2-way communication the entire time as it is?!

Think the BA crew come out of this very well....

Brings up a question: Realise the complexity of doing so, but could the BA crew have requested another controller, e.g. a supervisor to be brought on frequency?

PS. Reminds of times in France when have called up a regional airport for zone entry/joining instructions to find myself blasted with a full ATIS at barely comprehensible hyper-speed. :ugh:

[blind pew]

Back to the old Anglo Saxon arrogance I mentioned earlier......and lack of understanding ...

[betterfromabove]

blindpew - I'm not sure if that comment was aimed at me, but you're picking the wrong target I'm afraid.

1. This has been done a million times elsewhere, but the only logical conclusion if you've been around the world a bit and thought this through is that if there is to be one internationally understood language in the world for ATC then let's use it and let's all be trained sufficiently well to permit maximum communication. English, ahead of several other options, has been chosen. Yes, a post-imperial consequence, but it is not entirely unsuitable for the purpose linguistically, and, well, that's life.

2. Presuming the culture of others on an online forum and attaching epithets is a losing and (with all due respect, arrogant...) game. I was communicating in French with ATC at the time.

3. Transmitting large quantities of superfluous information on an ATC freq with poor diction does not add to communication, it diminishes it. This is regardless of whether either ATCO or pilot is a native speaker or not. There are no prizes for poor or incomplete understanding, only penalties.

[betterfromabove]

Have the airlines ever suggested pooling together to aid ATCO training where there appear to be issues? Or, does this run into understandable cultural/national sensitivities?

[blind pew]

You may well teach the queens english to foreigners but they revert to their own language syntax.
One has to try and think how johnnie foreigner thinks.
I had absolutely no problem understanding the GIG controller unlike my first trip to JFK in the 70s but then I had an experienced crew who briefed me on what to expect and translated when I didn't understand.
In BOAC there were briefing notes on what to expect wherever we flew in the good old empire....
My last company who incidentally were the first to fly direct from middle Europe to GIG had similar briefing notes....
That neither crew member understood controller in spite of flying for 12 hours smells of a lack of professionalism in my book.
And what would they have done steaming along at three grand with a radio failure....

[betterfromabove]

Surely ATC comms has its own stripped down, interrogative, syntax, which is designed to avoid this very problem?

Agree though that it is abused by many, including some supposedly in the anglophone world. Quite what are certain JFK controllers, remarkable though they are, trying to prove is unclear. Either they are there to communicate or they are not.

Perhaps the greatest relief here is that it wasn't a mayday (at night, in solid IMC).

[Slylo Green]

Blind Pew, maybe once you are down from the high horse you can re-read my post?


the last thing they need is complicated instructions

At no point did I say they didn't understand the instructions, you are saying that and you are saying it smells of unprofessionalism.:=

During my ATC training, one instructor x-EGLL, said the last thing a B747 crew, who have just flown long haul from XXX, needs its endless amounts of information on arrival. In short KEEP IT SIMPLE, there is another word but I think most know what that is.

[blind pew]

I don't think the Kennedy controllers are trying to prove anything - they are extremely professional operating in their own environment in their own language.
I don't have the same view of "repeat please" pilots or controllers though...
The big question is that BA probably accepted a radar vector below area MSA which in my book should have an associated published procedure in the event of comms failure which the controller is obliged to remind the crew of especially after a previous accident.
It appears that they did not understand the plain english of "clearance limit in the event of radio or radar failure".
It would only take a simple briefing note that in the event of accepting a non procedural approach expect radio failure clearance limit from Approach controller, if none received request or follow XYZ.
Sadly BA has some sad ideas re professionalism as demonstrated by the LAX flight especially the little bit where they asked the pax what they had seen at night after the engine popped.
Basic airmanship - don't descend below MSA unless you know where you are and have plan B if ATC goes quiet.

[Slylo Green]

You got something against BA, blind pew?

[blind pew]

Just crashing needlessly but please don't ask me about the frogs!

My last flight with them was to Dubai and vowed never again - won't consider AF either except those flights operated by CityJet who are a pleasure to fly with.

[LoserGill]

ATC can have all the syntax it wants but there are a LOT of times where a simple dialog is needed and that's the problem here (amongst other places).

[wiggy]

Like others here I've been there (GIG), heard it, done it.

Sat in the comfort of our office chairs listening to it on a "tape" is one thing, being sure you've got it right when you're dealing with significant terrain issues and/or avoiding Cbs is another thing entirely. It's hard work, especially after a long flight and frankly I don't blame the guys for not understanding things first time round and the trying to clarify what was being said, despite what the Monday morning quarter backs on here might think.

[Pontius]

I'm in the same boat as Wiggy. Sitting here in the comfort of my house, I still can't understand a lot of what the controller is trying to say. I'm certainly not criticising his English abilities but he should stick to standard phrases, rather than start making up 'new' clearances.

It appears that they did not understand the plain english of "clearance limit in the event of radio or radar failure".

Quite disparaging aren't you, Blind Pew. You'll be delighted know that BA do have briefing notes (including audio/visual for some airfields) and it's not just you ex-BOAC chaps that are so clever to have thought of the idea. As for a clearance limit 'in the event of', I think you need to get back in the books before casting aspersions. A clearance limit is precisely that, it does not need to be added to with loss of comms, loss of radar etc; nothing else need be said. A comms failure is a procedure in its own right and is published so that it can be studied beforehand, not made up on the cuff.

That neither crew member understood controller in spite of flying for 12 hours smells of a lack of professionalism in my book.

Strange book you've got where understanding a person's accent is associated with flight time and professionalism. I fly into China at least twice a week and still have difficulty understanding a lot of the controllers. This in spite of having flown with lots of ex-BOAC pilots, having a thorough knowledge of China's ATC rules and regs and having tried both 2 hour flights and 12 hour flights beforehand. I say that professionalism has nothing to do with understanding a heavily accented transmission, especially when the controller is making up stuff as he goes along i.e. for which you would be unable to brief, despite having BOAC's (not you Mike) wonder notes.

[10 DME ARC]

The controller was only covering his backside with an airline that does not normally operate into that airport. I.e. the radar heading and levels he gave where not terrain safe beyond a certain point hence the radio fail instructions to turn back to VOR if no comms by a set radial! A local operator would be familiar with this. I could understand what he wanted but it was totally different from what BA would be used to! Once he went back to basic's heads/levels to ILS there was no problem!

[LEGAL TENDER]

The controller was only covering his backside with an airline that does not normally operate into that airport.

Agree. It sounded a bit confusing and unnecessary but I'm sure the ATCO hates it as much as the crew. It's purely @rse covering, see the example in Italy where the controller ended up in jail after clearing the a/c for a visual after the crew reported visual and then crashed into a hill! I am pretty sure in Brazil ATC don't have the same kind of support and legal protection that we have in the UK.
We do it all the time, with limited services, SSR only, terrain clearance blah blah blah. It's only @rse covering, nothing to do with service provision.

[Plazbot]

All well and good but as a native English speaker even when issuing instruction to native English speakers, I will rarely issue more than two specific pieces of data information in one transmission. To a local operator, maybe three if they are routine. The addition of crazy clearance limits with the repetition was the problem. I work in a non English native environment and even basic directions are confusing to many operators. Even the differences between 2 and 3 can cause issues to different ears. The way this guy spat out 330 or what ever radial from a phonetically spelled omni and then backed it up with the name then the spelling along with heading and altitude info would be confusing to Speedbird even into a British port.

The summary is that the pilots were confused and rightly so. I am surprised (well not so much knowing about fuel policy) that they did not break off the approach as they suggested.

[Dan Winterland]

Standard RT would have helped here - I couldn't understand his instructions either. I spend a lot of my working career flying around China where similar language problems exist, but where the controllers reduce the threats by the use of standard phraseology and it works.

I know wht this crew were going through. I have been to GIG twice and the ATC struck me as being somewhat less than special!

[Topjet]

On first listen I thought the ATC was more than terrible.

On second listening and after getting a copy of the GIG Radar vectoring chart, the controllers instructions, although not perfect, make sense although I've never heard of an instruction, "incase of radio fail, continue heading for 1 minute then intercept LOC...etc.etc." Tricky situation for the crew if they didn't understand what he was saying....

Guess comms are a problem in the Rio TMA?

[Sydy]

Hi guys,

That's what happens when they send only ICAO 4 pilots to Rio!

Lol sorry for the joke, but could not resist.

Now, seriously, what happens there is that by brazilian regulations, when atc starts vectoring, they are supposed to give you a vector limit for safety reasons.

This controller just translated this procedure to english, which is quite confusing, and got a crew that is not used to it. In the end they made it all right.

In my opinion, the controller english is not that bad and the problem was to the brazilian procedure plain translation.

The origin of this procedure was an accident long time ago when a Rio Dep controller vectored a Lufthansa cargo 707 at 2000ft and it crashed close to Teresopolis city in the mountains because the controller forgot it in a northern heading.

I fly quite often to Rio and its tma area has a lot of mountains and might me a bit trick to land sometimes. Not a real mistery, but you got to know what to expect in that crowded area.

All the best,

Sydy

[blissbak]

Sorry but this procedure doesn't make sense, the problem should be solved by hiring controllers with good memory, at least good enough not to forget planes on a colliding heading.

[Sydy]

blissbak,

No use to argue in here. Those are brazilian regulations.

All the best,

Sydy

[blissbak]

Sidy, I work as air traffic controller, I do mistakes like all humans being do and the risk is directly proportional to the workload;
You are engaged in a big responsability when initiating a radar vectoring, you can't forget someone on the heading prompting a CFIT, it's a dirty and gross mistake wich no procedures will avoid but just human resource and training.

That's just my analysis, not meant to argue or hurt, regards.

[Sydy]

Hi Blissbak,

Let me say that, no hurt intended.

I concur, just like the majority of brazilian pilots, that this rule is dumb. It just increases the comms traffic volume.

There is more... On finals you have to state your landing gear status as "gear down and locked" or "fixed gear" just because a Col. forgot to lower his landing gear in 1969... No joke... This rule still stands in here, but I've seen it somewhere else as well...

Anyway, I agree that we can improve atc here in Brazil, but as this "vector limit" rule stands, we have to follow it. You got a point it can be improved and I got a point we have to follow the current rule.

I travel worldwide and this kind of atc regulation difference is the most difficult part of it. I do like the FAA way to control air traffic and, in my opinion, it is the most expeditious and safe way to do it.

I do think it is a matter of culture, but we got no window here to bypass our regulatory agency.

It is nice to see other people's point of view.

All the best,

Sydy

[WorkInProgress]

Seriously, Blind Pew must be a wind up merchant surely!! Cant believe his comments.
I'm an ATCO in the UK (now, not reminiscing back to the 70's) and what the GIG ATCO did by passing such a long winded instruction, when other posters have already stated that it is a flawed and convoluted rt fail procedure showed a complete lack of awareness for a crew that had just finished a 12hr plus flight and may not be that familiar as regular GIG pilots. He should have broken the transmissions down as already stated. Secondly, whether he can speak the best english or not he wasnt using std rtf for most of the approach, rarely identified himself or used the full BAW callsign.
Complete pants!!