Line up Rwy...behind...

[pilot in command]

Hi,

Small point but interested in it nevertheless. I have heard a lot of controllers using the phrase "behind the landing a318 line up RWY...behind". I got this type of clearance when flying today. The phrase uses the word "behind" twice (I guess for emphasis) however CAP 413 states that using saying behind twice detracts from the actual instruction. A lot of controllers seem to be using this at Heathrow as well.

Interested to know your thoughts and what people consider the correct phrase. I would go with CAP 413 but just surprised that a lot of controllers have been saying otherwise in their clearances recently so interested to know if there is a change that I was unaware of.

Thanks

[Talkdownman]

CAP 413 states that using saying behind twice detracts from the actual instruction
See CAP413 (https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%20413%20Radiotelephony%20Manual%20v%2021_5%20May%202015. pdf) Chapter 4 Page 15 Para 4.34 re. conditional clearances. Condition is reiterated.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Amazing how we ever got this far without problems. Phraseology has gone bananas.

[Gonzo]

Standard ICAO.

There's an argument that makes it slightly less bananas than before!

[Talkdownman]

It's just asking for another 'blow-over' incident. It was changed from bananas fifty years ago when a light aircraft (Travelair?) was damaged behind a Britannia(?) at Heathrow. It's now back to bananas...

[Gonzo]

Maybe. Perhaps changing was a knee jerk reaction though? There's been no issue since its reintroduction, and I know of no issue in ICAO world caused by 'behind'.

[Dan Dare]

I hate it. It's wrong for all sort of reasons. It doesn't sound right. It adds to RTF. It is grammatically awful.

BUT

IF everyone across the world uses it as standard then I can accept it for the UK too. People will eventually get used to it and any potential misunderstandings should fade with time and usage.

[vintage ATCO]

I don't like it either, sounds awful. I always preferred after the landing, behind the departure . . . .

Can't cope with Hectors Pastilles either but then I'm a dinosaur. :)

[Gonzo]

I actually prefer it. It took a few weeks to get used to it, but it sounds more robust, and also it sounds significantly different to a holding point marhsalling instruction. The 'After' phraseology could sound very similar to a marshalling instruction.

I do wonder how many runway incursions where a/c lined up without a clearance were caused in some part by confusion over that.

[jmmoric]

Then try sitting at the holding point and get told to line up behind the second landing.... You see, that's being used in some places, and may lead to misunderstandings. I don't even think it's allowed if it's not behind the first aircraft passing your "nose".

[Talkdownman]

line up behind the second landing.... You see, that's being used in some places

Not UK. CAP413 Chapter 4 Page 15 Para 4.34:

Conditional clearances are to relate to one movement only and, in the case of landing traffic, this must be the first aircraft on approach.

[2 sheds]

Likewise, ICAO PANS-ATM...

12.2.7 Conditional phrases, such as “behind landing aircraft” or “after departing aircraft”, shall not be used for movements affecting the active runway(s), except when the aircraft or vehicles concerned are seen by the appropriate controller and pilot. The aircraft or vehicle causing the condition in the clearance issued shall be the first aircraft/vehicle
to pass in front of the other aircraft concerned.

2 s

[EastofKoksy]

Unfortunately just another example of treating everyone as if they had an IQ of 50 just because somebody once made a mistake. It belongs to the same vintage as:

1. "climb altitude 6000 feet" -I have never heard a flight level referred to as "feet" before

2."turn left heading 320 degrees" - I think the clue is in the word "heading"

3. "climb now FL90" - perhaps someone might thinks the word "climb" means "climb tomorrow"?

[2 sheds]

Unfortunately just another example of treating everyone as if they had an IQ of 50 just because somebody once made a mistake. It belongs to the same vintage as:

1. "climb altitude 6000 feet" -I have never heard a flight level referred to as "feet" before

2."turn left heading 320 degrees" - I think the clue is in the word "heading"

3. "climb now FL90" - perhaps someone might thinks the word "climb" means "climb tomorrow"?

EastofKoksy

So you do not admit to the potential for human error or misunderstanding or the use of a language other than the mother tongue?

Point 1: Ever heard of metres?
Point 2: Ever heard of numerical confusion - with flight levels?
Point 3: Well actually, on a SID it could mean at the end of the SID.

2 s

[kcockayne]

These are all good points. But, I tend to think that in the effort to screw everything down so tightly that mistakes cannot be made, we will end up with a totally unworkable system.
It is all very similar to security; where, if you were ever able to do it 100% effectively, no one would ever get on an aeroplane !

[ShannonACC]

RT is definitely important, but too much 'fiddling' with it eventually leads to confusion. Some aspects, such as climbing, require extra care though. Climb now and climb, to some pilots and ATCOs, have two completely different meanings. As said 'climb now' is an instruction to disregard the SID profile and climb to wherever.
It gets to a point where changing some RT such as 'behind' being reitirated becomes a somewhat tedious process, as an aircraft won't (one would hope!) misinterpret 'Behind the landing A320 line up and wait' as line up clearence. You can never be too sure. Better safe than sorry and in aviation there's no 'hoping' involved.

-the controller from the mountains.

[Miraculix]

Example: Flying a BKP7F out of Heatrow.
Why would a controller give a pilot: "XXX123 climb FL090" when the plane is overhead CHT and expect him to fly 6.000 feet to BPK and then climb FL090? I can think of only 1 reason! (Lets see if we can make the pilot make a mistake)

I think it is all backwards, if a controller gives me a climb, that is an order and I would like to do what he asks me to do right away, I don't wan't to consult SID-charts analyze the wording of the clearance and what not. If the controller expects me to do the the English interpretation of the above example, I would expect the following transmission: "XXX123 after passing BPK climb FL090".

Remark, when flying in out of Heathrow and other English airports I follow these oddities, but some very nitpicking people must be in charge and if it can be made complicated, why leave it simple seems to be the rule... (After receiving a ACARS ATC clearance, one still have to tell everything the ACARS says, in spite of having confirmed it electronically to delivery and when airborne once again tell the whole thing to departure...) (The whole cleared ILS thing is way to complicated. "turn heading XXX follow localizer rwy xx, report established and when established localizer descend with the glidepath" in other countries its:"turn heading xxx cleared ils rwy xx". Yes some few strange pilots will then descend to initial altitude on the approach chart, but why not design the approach chart to start from 3000 feet in Heathrow??? is that to easy?

Some of the good things in Heathrow, friendly ATC that you know try their best, to work within the strange world their bosses make up and somehow make it work. :D Follow the greens, I love that, it's simple.

[22/04]

I guess the double behind thing is an ICAO thing - I first heard it in India and thought (no disrespect intended) it might be an "Indian English" thing- but then, later noticed it in the UK.

Same with Hectopascals in met broadcasts- in use in Pakistan in 1989 but millibars hung on much longer here.

I think the ILS phraseology is absolutely clear and allows flexibility for late turn-ons or expeditious approaches compared with a published chart e.g.


"G-ABCD descend altitude 2500 feet turn left heading 290 when established on the localiser descend with the glidepath."

[EastofKoksy]

Miraculix


Here, here!!!