BCN again...

[hetfield]

Argentinas A343, Easyjet A319 and Iberia A320 at Barcelona on Nov 12th 2012, loss of separation and TCAS resolution on final approach.

Incident: Argentinas A343, Easyjet A319 and Iberia A320 at Barcelona on Nov 12th 2012, loss of separation and TCAS resolution on final approach (http://avherald.com/h?article=458f61d3&opt=0)


Chilling....

[racedo]

All the pilots are at fault:rolleyes:, everyone knows that Spanish ATC never make mistakes.

[easy]

controller on the job training? :ooh:

[hetfield]

What makes me wonder, why wasn't Iberia number one?;)

[Funderblaster]

All spoken in English of course ;)

[flaphandlemover]

que.....?:}:}

[hetfield]

Is it unfair to ask if ATCO jobs at BCN, like others, are part of spanish nepotism?

[LEMG]

Before blaming ATC in this case you better learn a little spanish or ask someone to translate properly.

[hetfield]

Get away with your ignorance and learn a little bit of English.

[captplaystation]

Last time I was there with CB's around, APP lost the plot completely, becoming severely maxed out & fixated on communicating with one aircraft ,whilst simultaneously forgetting to hand anyone over to tower, or answer other stations. We left him at less than 2 miles & made our own arrangements to get a landing clearance.

I can believe anything here, although in this case the real problem is the failure to establish which aircraft is being followed, so fault on both sides.

LEMG, if you have nothing sensible to say, better to say nothing.

[LEMG]

Well this is the nice behaviour of some brits i really love it.
At least i can express myself in french , italian and very very little english so as to be able to enjoy your polite comments.
OH i forgot all of then are almost dead languages.
Just rubbish.
Adios Ciao Au revoir
And now call me something one more time.
Take care with the dangerous Spanish ATC
I know sometimes they really are but not this time in my ignorance.
But lets the wise man shed some light ...

captplaystation
I just was only trying to say in my bad english that in this case , after listening the incident, i believe the Argentina is the one who miss the controller instructions so for me 90% fault.
This is my poor opinion.
Sorry for interfering

[autoflight]

Crew should not identify a particular aircraft in this circumstance with TCAS. ATC should not accept the identification.

[Hotel Tango]

TCAS is not a tool for maintaining seperation or for sequencing oneself. I cannot defend an ATCO who allegedly allowed the ARG to do just that.

[DownIn3Green]

As a native English Speaker, I have operated in and out of Spain, and lived in Torremolinos for over six months as the Capt of a VIP jet.

Never had a problem anywere in Europe or Africa...I've said it before, and here it is again...English is the Official Language of Aviation...

However, imagine you are one of the selected few to be an ATCO in a third world country (of which Spain is not one). If you can manage enough English to seperate aircraft by saying "Cleared for Approach, Report over..., who are us English speakers to request "Straight In" or "Visual"?

Stick with the plan, and don't be in a hurry...additionally, we are guests in their country...act accordingly...

Just my opinion...DS/DI3G

[poorjohn]

DI3G:Stick with the plan, and don't be in a hurry...additionally, we are guests in their country...act accordingly... Actually at that point everyone on the radio should be a member of a team of highly-trained professionals working to make sure the ones in the air live long enough to attain 'guest' status

[No_AP_no_AT_no_FD]

"Before blaming ATC in this case you better learn a little spanish or ask someone to translate properly. "

In aviation, where English should be the universal language, why would ATC comms need to be translated? When will the Spanish move to all English comms? :ugh::rolleyes:

[Icelanta]

First of all, the AR flight could have made more effort in getting established. At 6200' you have still plenty of time to get gear and speedbrakes out, configure and dive down. To go around already then is stupid and creating more workload for everybody, including ATC.

Then, trying to follow an aircraft via TCAS... what the Fu.k!:ugh:

It is clearly the fault of The A340 here.

Yes, I had my share of problems with Spanish atc, but this incident is unfairly blamed on them.

And yes, I am from Northern Europe, but do find the English on this forum mostly arrogant prats who think that they own aviation but in reality have a lot to learn too, just like all of us. By the way, UK ATC phraseology is the absolute worst and most dangerous in Europe, with their non standard wordings.

[ATC Watcher]

Before starting blaming each other it would be wise to : 1) listen to the whole R/T conversation .
2) wait for an preliminary Investigation report .

But being on PPRuNe , if I take this sentence from the news clip :
(effectively downwind), the crew reported they had the Iberia in sight on their TCAS display and offered to visually follow the Iberia, which the controller approved. .

I could deduct ( speculation )

ATC cleared AR dowwind ,
AR requested to make a visual APP.
ATC should have given him the position/distance of the 2 preceeding ( more speculation from my side ).
AR misindentified the correct a/c based on a TCAS indication and turned base between the 2.
When it got too close TCAS RAs separated both a/c.

Lesson for us all :

Visual is with eyes looking out windows, ...not down into a TCAS dispay.

[Mikehotel152]

By the way, UK ATC phraseology is the absolute worst and most dangerous in Europe, with their non standard wordings.

I'm all for an even debate but c'mon, really? Most people regard UK ATC as being pretty good, if not the best around, and an incident of this nature is highly unlikely to happen at somewhere like LGW.

I've flown into BCN on a number of occasions and APP always seems stretched to the max and late landing clearance (100' on one occasion) is not unusual because of chaotic handovers.

[Callsign Kilo]

It's pretty easy to blame the Spanish controllers considering the present climate, however I wouldn't go overboard on the Argentinians either. You can be left in a pretty **** condition in BCN if you don't keep your wits about you. It's easy to be left high and then be slotted in behind slower moving traffic being told to reduce speed when the previous controller requested high speed to accommodate sequencing and height loss. Who's to say the go around wasn't a good idea, however declaring visual based on a TCAS ND presentation is, well :eek: I would imagine these guys weren't exactly feeling 'fresh' after their trip across the pond either.

It will be interesting to read the final report. It's been a busy few months for the Spanish authorities.

[Krueger]

I also agree that visual is looking out the window but even so the Aerolineas could have mistaken the Easy by the Iberia. So the ATC should have have been very specific on what was the order for landing.

Probably it's the economic crisis that we in Europe are living that everybody starts shooting each other for peanuts. Relax, this is just a rumour network.:E

[A4]

I had exactly the scenario CallsignK describes last time I went into BCN. Told to keep 180 knots by APP (TCAS contact showing about 2.5 - 3D ahead...) on hand over tower immediately instructed to reduce to minimum due preceding :rolleyes: Landing clearance at 100'..... absolutely zero coordination between APP and TWR with inappropriate "ambitious" vectoring.

@Icelanta

Can you give some examples of UK ATC phraseology which is so non standard as to be dangerous please. Genuine question. The main difference I can think of is "behind the landing...... Line up behind" which is used throughout Europe except the UK.

[LEMG]

In aviation, where English should be the universal language, why would ATC comms need to be translated? When will the Spanish move to all English comms? .
I didn´t justify ATC comms in spanish .I just tried to express that as all comms were in spanish you better be sure what they`d said before blaming anybody.

Icelanta
I completely agree

[LEMG]

I also agree that visual is looking out the window but even so the Aerolineas could have mistaken the Easy by the Iberia. So the ATC should have have been very specific on what was the order for landing.


That was exactly the problem.ATC gave them the position of the precedent (10 o´clock-7 nm) and they pay no attention and adjust to the Easyjet.

[Icelanta]

Only in the UK:

Iceair123 turn right heading 020 DEGREES this is absolute bull****. Either you turn into a heading, or you turn an amount of degrees. When combining two phraseologies, you are asking for misunderstandings resulting in a reduction of safety. It is either turn right Heading 020 or it is turn right 020 degrees. Follow bloody ICAO.

Iceair123, when established on the localiser, descend with the glide:ugh::mad:
Absolute bull again, you are either cleared ILS or not cleared ILS. again, the Brits are making things complicated where it is not necessary, and where the whole rest of the World follows ICAO.
This Again creates confusion, especially to non native speakers. but hey, the Brits do not care, the vast majority only know English anyway and have no idea what speaking and understanding a foreign language is...:ugh:

So I stand by my claim that in Europe, the UK has the worst phraseology, but it must be said, terrific controllers.

[Leg]

Whilst I am not a fan of thread creep, Icelanta can not be allowed to be so supercilious... How a heading of 'turn right 020 degrees' can be confused with an instruction to turn right by an amount of 20 degrees is disengenious as the call would be 'turn right 20 degrees' NOT 020 degrees.

I am glad you acknowledge our ATC colleagues are the best there is though :ok:

[Oceanic815]

Had to go around at BCN not that long ago due to being vectored so close to aircraft ahead that we had no hope of getting clearance to land. They subsequently vectored us around for another approach only to do the same thing again:ugh:. When I complained they said 'we are having trouble vectoring aircraft this evening!!!!!!'

Always carry a bit of extra gas in to BCN, just in case:ok:

[Howard Johnson]

Not only in the air is there real collision danger at BCN.

Just have a look at page 10-9 of the Jeppesen Charts (airport layout and taxiways) and count the number of Runway Incursion Hotspots. HS2 is actually so big it covers 11 different junctions/holding points!

Add to this the confusing layout of taxiways and cross runways, plus four separate ground frequencies and the addition of non-standard R/T, often in the national language...

Now imagine the scene with Low Visibility Procedures in force? It is bound to happen sooner or later, a major collision on the ground between airliners in poor visibility.

BCN should be classified as a CAT C airport and the points made by previous reporters regarding ATC loss of SA are well made.

We all need to be more careful when operating at this airport even in good WX.

[hetfield]

@Howard

I fully agree.

I'm afraid there will be a big bang sooner or later.

[Al Murdoch]

Barcelona is equipped with radar right? Why clear a four engine heavy with hundreds of people onboard to arrange his own separation from 2 other aircraft? Sounds at best lazy. What would be wrong with proper vectoring in this scenario?
Every time I hear people respond to a traffic report with "we have him on TCAS", I do wonder what they are saying exactly. I don't see the relevance of that statement.
But then I similarly get irritated by "Down 200" and "squawk coming down". Maybe I need a holiday...

[gcal]

@Howard Johnson

Which national language can you tell me?
Please don't tell me Catalan :ugh:
Aside from Vueling most of the other big players at the airport will certainly not have Spanish, let alone Catalan, as their principal language.
EZ, RYR etc..
There are flights from several U.S. airlines and many more besides
Given the numbers of non Spanish speaking airlines now basing a lot of flights out of BCN not speaking the international language of aviation is inexcusable.
Put it this way, would Cardiff airport be speaking Welsh?

[Mikehotel152]

Icelanta,

As Legs points put, your complaint about heading instructions is unreasonable. The only non-ICAO bit in UK phraseology is the use of the word 'degrees' when giving a specific heading that ends on a zero. I like it. It avoids confusion with cleared FLs.

And the instruction to descend on the glide once established on the localiser is given when on radar vectors and is presumably intended to ensure you do not descend below the cleared altitude until established on the localiser, i.e. capturing the glide in the protected area. How is that dangerous or annoying even if non-ICAO?

[fmgc]

There is a marked difference between being cleared for the ILS and once established on the localiser descend with the glide.

If you don't know the difference then maybe flying isn't for you! The former allows you to descend with the procedure, the latter doesn't. Therefore ATC still have control of your level until you start going down with the glide.

The terminology is in fact "turn right HEADING 020 degrees" not "turn right 020 degrees".

So Icelanta I would suggest checking your facts before you comments.

[Alt Crz Green]

Every time I hear people respond to a traffic report with "we have him on TCAS", I do wonder what they are saying exactly. I don't see the relevance of that statement.

Agreed entirely. I cringe every time and hope I'm not too near to them, in case their ignorance includes controlling their aircraft in the vicinity of others.
Probably the same muppets who "stand-by for descent".... (And they tend to be of a native-speaking northern variety, giving lie to the belief that native speakers are any better than others at standard phraseology).

[Agaricus bisporus]

I think this incident provides a perfect example of the dangers of volunteering that you are "visual" with another aircraft in an IFR environment.

By doing this you are risking exactly what may have happened here, a "clearance" - which is effectively "at your discretion" - to carry out a VFR procedure based on your assumption that your identification is correct. Using TCAS as an identification aid is even more hazardous imho than a controller's description (left 11 o'clock 3 miles) because he will - should - only give that if there is nothing else there that you might confuse it with while with TCAS you cannot be sure whether what you are looking at is the proximate traffic or one that TCAS is not showing. TCAS just isn't that accurate on bearings anyway, doing this is using it for a purpose it was never designed nor intended for, so DON'T!

I am never happy with confirming self-identified traffic to ATC - sure, look and see if you think you can see it but I never tell ATC I've identified it cos how can I be sure? That's his job. The word "controller" gives the clue. It is not our place to take responsibility for separation in an IFR environment, nor should they expect or encourage us to. Flying club procedures at an international airport are just going to end in tears.

imho it is a practice to be avoided completely.

And to do this at BCN of all places - with their shonky standards - madness.

Not, for once, blaming Spanish ATC entirely here, but their standards are generally pretty appalling and before too long are going to result in a heavy body-count. That much is a racing certainty.

Be careful out there!

[Krueger]

When you say that you're visual with the traffic, means exactly that. It means that you see the traffic (not on TCAS), it doesn't mean that you are canceling IFR. ATC still is responsible for traffic separation. Usually there is this confusion among pilots and ATC. Unless you ask to cancel it or the controller asks you if you can maintain own separation, you're still on an IFR flight plan although in VMC.

[His dudeness]

Most people regard UK ATC as being pretty good, if not the best around

No they don`t. Only Brits do, cause they think they are superior in every which way of life.... In fact, some dialects spoken by UK ATC are very, very hard to understand for people not from the UK. Try Scottish control or some of the east enders working in London...(Shanwick?)....horrible.

The best in Europe are the Dutch, hands down. AMS in rush hour - thats brilliant ATC for you.

Given the numbers of non Spanish speaking airlines now basing a lot of flights out of BCN not speaking the international language of aviation is inexcusable.

English is the Official Language of Aviation...

In aviation, where English should be the universal language, why would ATC comms need to be translated? When will the Spanish move to all English comms?

Well as far as I know, Spanish is an official ICAO language. Whilst an all english enviroment would be desirable, the poor atco might have to speak spanish if spoken to by the pilot ?

Get away with your ignorance and learn a little bit of English.

The winner for taodays most pompous statement !

[captplaystation]

If we are going to discuss non-standard phraseology I offer the fairly common Spanish (and the Dutch have been known to use it too) "Flight Level Zero Eight Zero"

Zero eight zero is a heading, and is most definitely NOT a level. Not only can it be confused with a heading, but it offers the possibility of confusing it with Two eight zero / One eight zero (which I have heard readback & not corrected by ATC until I interjected.)
Flight Level Eight Zero is clear & unequivocal.

Only mystery here is how (like the Lan Chile flameout diverting from MAD to VLC) the Spanish Govt will manage to blame Ryanair for this one :hmm:


Edited to say, have to disagree with your assessment of AMS ATC. . #1, because they speak pretty good English, they speak it too fast & even a native speaker will sometimes struggle to get everything 1st time when combined with that tiny Dutch accent #2 , they do sometimes try to be just a little "too" clever (CPH are guilty of this too) as evinced by the beginning of the Turkish accident .

[gcal]

'Well as far as I know, Spanish is an official ICAO language. Whilst an all english enviroment would be desirable, the poor atco might have to speak spanish if spoken to by the pilot ?'

Yes, I think we all accept that - my bold.

However I lay a bet that the vast majority of flights at BCN have non Spanish speaking pilots; aside from Vueling no other sizeable Spanish airline has its hub there.
Plus, what language are Spanish pilots talked to when they venture abroad, Spanish? I think not.
Of interest as regards attitudes are the signs in the terminals at BCN language wise:
1/. Catalan
2/. English
3/. Spanish

[bigjames]

if nothing else it uses precious radio time. "turn right heading zero two zero" is all you need. do you turn to a flight level? to a speed? what else are you gonna turn to? the extra word 'degrees' is not necessary. if they say reduce to two one zero, does that mean descend to FL 210??? reduce heading to 210 degres? where exactly is the confusion?

[Yaw String]

Whilst on subject of ambiguity...why do so many Auzzie controllers insist on using the word "To" when referring to Alt/FL clearances, and yes..I'm a half Pom!
Thought the danger of that chestnut had been discussed years ago..:E
Every country appears to have it's verbal idiosyncrasies!

Long live the synchronized Idiot!:D

[haughtney1]

No they don`t. Only Brits do, cause they think they are superior in every which way of life.... In fact, some dialects spoken by UK ATC are very, very hard to understand for people not from the UK. Try Scottish control or some of the east enders working in London...(Shanwick?)....horrible.

The best in Europe are the Dutch, hands down. AMS in rush hour - thats brilliant ATC for you.

Dudeness...horsepoo, AMS are ok, but LHR are far far better, and I'm not a Brit.

BCN is a clusterfcuk and is an accident waiting to happen, its a metaphor for the rest of Spanish ATC, tarring them all with the same brush? yep you betcha.
I feel safer flying into Lagos or CDG than I do going into BCN or MAD.

[Spitoon]

if nothing else it uses precious radio time. "turn right heading zero two zero" is all you need. do you turn to a flight level? to a speed? what else are you gonna turn to? the extra word 'degrees' is not necessary. if they say reduce to two one zero, does that mean descend to FL 210??? reduce heading to 210 degres? where exactly is the confusion?Whatever you may think about some of the peculiarities of British phraseology, the decision to vary from ICAO standards is almost always based on empirical evidence of misunderstanding or ambiguity. You, as an individual, may think there is no possible way of misunderstanding whether 210 is a heading, level or speed, others with a lesser grasp of the phraseology have mistaken a clearance. Wherever possible data is collected to show that the different phraseology reduces misunderstandings or improves the situation in some way. Well as far as I know, Spanish is an official ICAO language. Whilst an all english enviroment would be desirable, the poor atco might have to speak spanish if spoken to by the pilot ?Spanish is one of the languages in which ICAO publishes its documents. This has nothing to do with the language used for RTF - the standard for RTF is the local language or English on request.

[misd-agin]

Can't slow to 190 kts?? :ugh:

[viking767]

Only mystery here is how (like the Lan Chile flameout diverting from MAD to VLC)


When did this happen?

[DaveReidUK]

Only mystery here is how (like the Lan Chile flameout diverting from MAD to VLC)

When did this happen?

Evening of 26th July this year.

The aircraft [A343] with call sign LAN 705 was performing the flight from Frankfurt to Madrid (EDDF-LEMD). According to the analysis of communications provided by Valencia approach Centre, at 21:06 hours, the aircraft declared emergency due to engine 3 loss, landing uneventful at 21:16 hours. The subsequent analysis of information provided by operator revealed that an auto shutdown of engine 3 was produced due to low fuel flow. The aircraft landed with an amount of fuel 57 Kg below the calculated final reserve fuel."

(Source: CIAIAC)

[Agaricus bisporus]

I too am somewhat wary at AMS and CPH, Both sound very slick and competent and almost always are but are also prone to infrequent foul-ups that can really take the wind out of your sails. I've had a few at both destinations and they can be real shockers - all the more surprising as you just aren't expecting full-scale Lagos moments in N Europe. AMS at low level is where I'm most on guard, and especially so in the final stages of vectoring. Anyone else?

And because this is the internet I suppose I have to add the rider that they are not remotely comparable with Spain, despite the fact that I haven't remotely suggested that they are.

[Alt Crz Green]

The subsequent analysis of information provided by operator revealed that an auto shutdown of engine 3 was produced due to low fuel flow. The aircraft landed with an amount of fuel 57 Kg below the calculated final reserve fuel."

Auto shutdown of an engine with more than final reserve fuel available? I think not. More to that than meets the eye.

[Depone]

if nothing else it uses precious radio time

Far better a single extra word and clarity than a phrase susceptible to misinterpretation, an incorrect read back or worse, a conflict.

if they say reduce to two one zero, does that mean descend to FL 210??? reduce heading to 210 degres? where exactly is the confusion

It's intended for phrases that contain multiple instructions but for the sake of consistency it is used all the time.

e.g. "Dimbo123, descend flight level 120, turn left heading 110 degrees, speed 220 knots when level".

Which is far clearer than:

"Dimbo123, descend 120, head 110, 220 when level".

Or do you disagree?

[captplaystation]

Depone, right with you there :ok: if I remember the report on avherald stated that Lan Chile landed with around 2 tons with a final reserve of 2.5 or so ? the problem if I remember is that the fuel was not balanced due to failure to cross-feed at min fuel & the outer one flamed out. Sorry no time to look for the link (must fly) but that is how I remember it.



Curiosity got the better of me, 1300kg in one side 800 in the other , final reserve reqd 2800kg :eek:

[Hotel Tango]

Jeez, some of you know-it-all guys really need to go and spend a day at a busy approach facility and get educated! The Brits only seem good because they sound good (speaking in their mother tongue). The truth is that they cock things up too. Ah but it's easy to lay into the foreigners isn't it.

[hetfield]

@HT

Are you talking about ATCOS or Pilots?

[frontlefthamster]

This event reminds me of a screaming horror of a serious incident about a decade ago at BCN involving an easy 737, lined up to go on 25 as it then was, and a foreign aircraft which landed over the top of it... From hazy recollection, the 'controlladora' lost the plot and cleared the other aircraft to land over the top of the easy, this being the only piece of standard phraseology in several minutes of RTF. Again, use of the local lingo was unhelpful as the non-Spanish speakers had no SA on the Spanish-speaking traffic. The fact that the landing threshold was displaced may have prevented catastrophe, as it provided some miss distance.

I've just tried to find the report on the CIAIAC website, but without joy. Can anyone point to it?

[PPRuNeUser0190]

e.g. "Dimbo123, descend flight level 120, turn left heading 110 degrees, speed 220 knots when level".

Which is far clearer than:

"Dimbo123, descend 120, head 110, 220 when level".

That's a bit a silly comparison, comparing it to non-standard phraseology.

Standard ICAO would be "turn left heading 110". Personally, when I hear the words "turn", "left" & "heading" I don't need the word "degrees" to know this is an instruction to turn the aircraft...

For the rest no complaints on the UK ATC :-)

[acuba 290]

Had to do a go-around in BCN as well 2 years ago,after landing clearance received and another aircraft was still on runway)))

[fmgc]

Retiring Virgin Capt gets airborne out of Sydney: "Goodbye Sydney, this is my last time here as I am retiring after this flight, I would like you to know that you are the 2nd best ATC in the world."

Sydney ATC: "Thank you Capt, just out of interest who are the best?"

Retiring Capt: "All of the rest!!"

[haughtney1]

Jeez, some of you know-it-all guys really need to go and spend a day at a busy approach facility and get educated! The Brits only seem good because they sound good (speaking in their mother tongue). The truth is that they cock things up too. Ah but it's easy to lay into the foreigners isn't it.

Been there, done that, worn the t-shirt, Yes the brits make a cock up or two, but I'm just calling it as I see it:ok:

[Depone]

That's a bit a silly comparison

Actually Rvblyky7, it is not. It is real world. Most ATC combine the two styles but the fuller style is commonly heard around the UK and Masstricht too. The use of the word 'degrees' is allowed by ICAO, according to Eurocontrol, and the whole point - if you read the thread - is to put sufficient info in the instructions to avoid misunderstandings. Anybody who isn't either being disingenuous or a 'clever dick' will admit to hearing incorrect read backs on a regular basis, most of which would be avoided through the use of clearer, less ambiguous phraseology.

Better that than the BCN approach to vectoring...

[DaveReidUK]

I've just tried to find the report on the CIAIAC website, but without joy. Can anyone point to it?

EZY B733 and CSA B734, 1st September 2002.

http://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyres/52F2A10D-741D-436F-AB25-40691030FAC8/8093/2002_060_IN_english.PDF

Scary.

[captplaystation]

10 years later. . . . did it get any better ?

Another somewhat uncomfortable procedure is allowing taxying aircraft from T2 to pass under the 07L approach on their way to 07R. Because of the displaced threshold this is not seen as a "runway crossing" per-se & you find yourself being flown over by other aircraft@ about 150RA (much as in this incident above). Perhaps the procedures were inspired by this incident :D:D (if it worked OK why not :rolleyes: )

The consequences of a long-lansding /overun on 25R are also not considered either when taxying from T2 to 25R crossing the stop-end of 25L with landing traffic. . . . . it is all fine & good, but just sometimes feels a bit "iffy".
Haven't yet been cleared to taxy that way with a "heavy" using the longer 25L to take-off, that is one clearance I will refuse, as I don't fancy becoming an aluminium RESA.

[A4]

I agree with captps. I always "adjust" my taxi speed to make sure that there is no chance of me being in the firing line when taxiing through the undershoot of 07L. Likewise I always look to see what's occurring on 25R before entering the runoff area.

It similar at AMS. When taxiing for 36L (which is about 4-5km the long way) I was sent around the northern end of 36C (i.e. 18C threshold) which was being used for departures. For a departing aircraft off 36C it must have looked quite alarming to see an aircraft "entering" the far end of the runway as it crossed on the taxiway, beyond the runway end.

Let's all be careful out there.

[LMX]

Haven't yet been cleared to taxy that way with a "heavy" using the longer 25L to take-off, that is one clearance I will refuse, as I don't fancy becoming an aluminium RESA.

I don't think you will get that clearance. Have always been held at S141 when there is traffic departing 25R.

[captplaystation]

My mistake I meant " longer 25R", anyway, glad to hear they draw the line at that, as 35ft hedge height may result in some interesting tech-log entries & a lot of paperwork. :=

[LMX]

I didn't even notice the typo. Anyway, they will not allow you to go around the end of 25R with departing traffic, they will hold you at S141.

Being based in BCN, my impression is that GND/TWR are usually doing a pretty good job (especially compared to the rest of Spain), and they are service-minded too. In APP and ACC, it really depends on the controller. Some are absolute rubbish. It seems there is little coordination between the sectors. You can be told by the first sector to leave the IAF on one heading only to be told something completely different by the next sector. Speed control is unpredictable at best, but the situation is not improved by many pilots flying their own speeds, often without telling ATC.

[PENKO]

Funny thing that no-one seems to be discussing the actual incident, namely an Argentinian aircraft that is told to visually follow the Iberia (number 2) but follows the easyJet (number 1) instead causing a conflict with the Iberia. I'm sure it was all in Spanish, but that should not be a factor here. I always thought it was dangerous in dense civil airspace to be told by ATC to follow or maintain own separation with other aircraft.


With regards to AMS, we tend to give them far more credit than they deserve. Their operation is slick and honestly they seem to do a good job, but sometimes they are too slick and hence not so good. Funny enough I have never had any major trouble in Spain, but in Amsterdam I have had my share of interesting events (vectored into the parallel arrivals, total ATC breakdown due to a single CB)!

[A4]

Speed control is unpredictable at best, but the situation is not improved by many pilots flying their own speeds, often without telling ATC.

That may be so....but a pilot initiated reduction is normally because there is a lack of,or breakdown of SA, on the part of the controller so the pilot errs on the side of caution to prevent a GA. This is the exact scenario I described a few posts back - it was obvious to us that "maintain 180 knots" whilst approx 2.5-3D behind the preceding at 6 miles from touchdown was not going to work. Even with our proactive slowing and then instruction to reduce to minimum on handover to tower only just worked out with clearance to land at 100'.

All totally avoidable with some less "sporty" vectoring and a bit of coordination between APP/TWR. The question is why Approach control so variable at BCN? At most other major European hubs it is consistent, logical and (mostly) works.

[LMX]

What I meant regarding speed control is that if we are assigned a speed and then self-adjust, it might give the controller a false impression that his/her speed control worked flawlessly. Of course having to go around just to prove a point to ATC doesn't really help either...

I have seen some captains being a bit too "proactive" with their self speed control though, to the point of having to retract flaps and increase speed on final, just because they "felt" that we were too close to the preceding (but in fact were being caught up by the next aircraft instead). Why not at least give ATC a chance to do their job, and if it's obvious that they are not, then intervene.

[Tiennetti]

Records of the comms from that day
Denuncian que un avión de Aerolíneas estuvo muy cerca de chocar en el aire (http://www.clarin.com/sociedad/Aerolineas-Argentinas-desastre-aterrizar-Barcelona_0_809919240.html)

I would say that is pretty clear that the ARG has messed up....

He is complaining initially that he is too high and cannot slow down/descent at the same time
ATC says "you only descended 1000ft in 3 minutes"

ATC give vector hdg 1 south, then headig 70
After a while the ARG reports "Iberia on final in sight, can we follow him?"
ATC answer "the traffic is your 10 o'clock, 7 miles, if this is the traffic, follow him"
ARG says "turning"
after a while ATC "the traffic is yours 1 o'clock, 3 miles"
ARG "in sight on the TCAS"
Iberia then complains
ARG "turning left" then... "i was following ATC instruction sir"
again on heading 70 (in the meanwhile you can hear a masterwarning)
then on the end the ATC tries to clarify "i believe you were referring to the EZY instead of the IBE"
as the ARG says "we told you that we had the "Iberia on final" insight and to follow him... you never said that we had another traffic on the right side..."

[Depone]

I've always assumed that Spanish Controllers will not correct an incorrect clearance read-back because in my experience for some perverse reason they don't.

I've also questioned their odd instructions and found them quite happy to completely change their minds when challenged (e.g. an occasion we were asked to orbit at 5d on an ILS, which we declined). Makes you wonder about their situational awareness, no?

On that basis, asking, and gaining agreement, to self position onto an ILS into a notoriously busy airport based on visual/TCAS seems risky.

[RTO]

Don't mistake "cool" phraseology with good controlling - AMS controllers are much too prone to that very mistake. They're average at best (as long as the wx is ok and they're not too busy). If they were even as good as they think they are, and they're a long way off that, they wouldn't come close to London TMA control and the LHR and LGW directors. Best controllers in Europe, the rest are so far behind it's embarrassing.
But of course, the grammar police strikes back. Here to remind us that it does not matter if you bend the aircraft or kill the pax as long as you kept to the correct phraseology. I'll support the earlier post, LHR/LGW do not come close to the AMS controllers, they are without doubt the best controllers in Europe, also when the wx is horrible, thats when they really shine.

Spain however is in a tight race with Italy and Greece to be the absolute worst ATC in Europe.

[Alt Crz Green]

But of course, the grammar police strikes back. Here to remind us that it does not matter if you bend the aircraft or kill the pax as long as you kept to the correct phraseology.

You're implying that I don't rate AMS because of their too cool for school phraseology. I don't think that's a causal effect of their poor controlling - apart from perhaps to give the unwary an impression they're better than they are.
Anyway, we shall agree to disagree. I still AMS are poor and don't rate at all alongside London, but hey, each to their own.

[SmokeAndNoise]

...well yes, except you would be talking to Madrid if you were direct Pamplona unless you had gotten a DIRECT routing - which they don't give in Spain... :ugh: ;)

[smileandwaveboys]

My experience of the various ATC units around Europe over the last 15 years or so is that the further north you go, the better and more helpful they get. While I agree that the Dutch are amongst the better controllers, they have their moments - five changes of runway on our way in to AMS because of lack of co-ordination between controllers is a case in point, as was the time they cleared a 737 onto an ice covered taxiway that had no grip at all, so the fire crews couldn't even stand up after said ac slid into a lighting rig. But that is unusual for them. The Scandinavians seem excellent. British controllers make mistakes, and you do have to pay attention, but I find their mistakes far fewer than anywhere else. The Irish are interesting because they have a lot of non-standard and archaic practices (such as only giving departure clearances once you're lined up and not using stop bars in good weather), and DUB seem particularly adept at creating a false sense of security, seeming far more capable than they actually are. The Greeks and Italians have some issues, but are generally workable if you learn to understand their accents, but Europe's worst are without a shadow of doubt the Spanish controllers; while there are some helpful and very competent controllers down there, there is a huge proportion of seemingly belligerent and incompetent controllers way beyond the levels experienced anywhere else in the EU. I have suffered BCN area control walking away from their console when lots of ac were asking for weather avoidance. That just wouldn't happen elsewhere.

None are perfect, of course, but no pilots are perfect either. There are some differences in phraseology, some which is annoying, and the UK has much of the minor stuff - adding "degrees" to headings that end in a "0" is to differentiate between levels and headings, but is not used elsewhere yet. Clearances on to the LOC and then GS are to stop pilots descending before being on the LOC, as otherwise does happen. I don't see the need for reading back "hectopascals" when the QNH is below 1000 - 950 is not going to be a headings, speed or level, after all, so some of it is a bit ill-conceived and very pedantic, but at least it's clear. The comments by LEMG and our Icelandic friend are emotional, not factual.

[Burnie5204]

Supposedly (4th hand info though) was that the "hectopascals" below 1000 is because of the similarity between (for example) 994hPa and (2)9.94InHg. Supposedly this resulted in a, non-commercial, airprox due the ensuing differences in altitudes.

I have no way of knowing if that is one of the reasons but it does seem to make sense.

[Spitoon]

I have no way of knowing if that is one of the reasons but it does seem to make sense.100% correct and it was not just after a non-commercial AIRPROX but following a survey of errors in the London TMA.

[smileandwaveboys]

Ah, that's interesting and gives a good perspective of the rationale behind what otherwise seems a pointless and pedantic change. There are an awful lot of GA jets in the LTMA, most seemingly flown by US, so the HPa/inHg factor would be strongest there...