BA pilot at it again at Dublin [Archive]

kcockayne

20th Jun 2016, 08:49

Controller f**cked it up. Gave Push/start with no conditional on the speed bird, just to the Aer Lingus (atr??). All she was going after that was covering her own ass and still went on to contradict herself. No need for the BA pilot to discuss it on the RT though - file an MOR and let the investigators sort it out

Many years ago, I "messed up" badly with vectoring an AUR SH360 to what I had hoped would be a short final. The idea being to save him time & get me out of vectoring problems with following a/c. He had to go round, so no one gained, & my problems increased. I was embarrassed by this, but the only course of action was to make an abject apology - which was graciously accepted. (In actual fact, I think the Captain was a little surprised to have received it). There was, in my opinion, nothing to be gained by an investigation. I learned plenty from the experience & I never did it again; & the Captain was satisfied to have me accept culpability & to have made the apology.
Nowadays, would we inevitably have been into an official enquiry & disciplinary action? I don't think it was necessary, although I suppose you could say that other ATCOS would have gained from analyzing this event.

DaveReidUK

20th Jun 2016, 10:37

BA being extremely rude to a controller at Dublin

Despite having listened to the recording several times, I can't hear any words or sentiments from the BA pilot that could remotely be described as rude, which is more than can be said for some of the other comments on frequency.

all the other pilot's reaction are absolutely hilarious!That may be so, but their somewhat sycophantic expressions of support are directed to a ground controller who has just cleared a flight to push back into the path of another aircraft, prevented only by a vigilant tug crew.

Capt. G L Walker

20th Jun 2016, 12:17

Anyone used to Dublin knows only too well this kind of chaos is SOP. I'm the first to say that they are a little la de da at times but absolutely well done to the BA crew for remaining professional - the courtesy shown by informing the ATCO of their intention to file a report was lost on many.

The playground mentality shown by these eejits is pretty typical of an industry now increasingly populated by 121.5 dwelling man-babies. The flying career is being strangled by businesses that treat aircrew like muppets and you don't have to look far to see why.

Sort it out you lot - before the professionals all leave and you're left sucking your thumb. :ok:

Evanelpus

20th Jun 2016, 12:22

Despite having listened to the recording several times, I can't hear any words or sentiments from the BA pilot that could remotely be described as rude, which is more than can be said for some of the other comments on frequency.

100% agree with you Dave. Maybe Shannon ACC has an agenda here?

Martin_123

20th Jun 2016, 16:09

Controller f**cked it up. Gave Push/start with no conditional on the speed bird, just to the Aer Lingus (atr??). All she was going after that was covering her own ass and still went on to contradict herself. No need for the BA pilot to discuss it on the RT though - file an MOR and let the investigators sort it out
that's not quite true, they were both given conditional clearances and both of them had to wait on the same ryanair plane to park up on stand 125. If you look up dublin chart, you will see that technically BA should have been clear of conflict sooner than stobart and begin his push before him, but for some reason he didn't push. Once Stobart was cleared from conflict, it started pushing and our BA chap got upset for no reason whatsoever. It wouldn't have affected safety as the point Bravo is before point Charlie and once the push would have finished, It wouldn't have affected BA in any way..

also please keep in mind that we have a recording that's edited and originating from liveatc which hosts some 5-6 frequencies on the same feed. It's more than likely that we don't have a full conversation here, so making any sort of conclusions based on this alone is a bit silly

GAPSTER

20th Jun 2016, 18:03

Well done the ATCO,fairly well done the BA....the other dicks I would have told to maintain R/T discipline.I'd expect better.

T250

20th Jun 2016, 20:06

Funny how it's always BA at DUB :}

Does it really take both members of the flight deck to communicate with the ground crew??

One should be monitoring ATC at all times. I repeat, at all times. :ugh:

Well done that ATCO

Mike Flynn

20th Jun 2016, 20:33

BA Captain trying to throw his weight around.

If he was higher up the tree he would not be flying short taxi hops out of Dublin.

In opinion a gold plated arrogant star P*ll*ck.

Often found in supermarket car parks in the Thames valley on a Saturday morning:ok:

LookingForAJob

20th Jun 2016, 20:42

One should be monitoring ATC at all times. I repeat, at all times.
Just like a controller should never miss a call....like, maybe, because they're on a landline!

Let's get real! Maybe someone screwed something up. Maybe more than one person screwed something up. We all have a job to do and we all have priorities, some of which change with the situation. It was a good outcome - nothing got harmed except a bit of pride or whatever, maybe justifiably, maybe not. And everyone can screw something up, even on a good day! And on a less good day, little things can get to us all and we can behave in ways that are less than perfect.

It's hard to tell exactly what happened just from that recording - it could have been edited, who knows - but there were crossed transmissions that were not necessarily obvious to either the controller or crew (note to UK controllers - not everywhere do controllers have the luxury of off-air sidetone). And I don't know the layout of the aprons, or the comms between flightdeck and ground crew, so I'm not going to try to second guess what actually happened.

A report is going in - there's no reason to imagine that it will not be professionally investigated to find out what happened and to try and find ways to prevent a recurrence.

T250

20th Jun 2016, 21:04

Just like a controller should never miss a call....like, maybe, because they're on a landline!

Controllers don't usually have any back up. Maybe an ATSA/ATCA if they're lucky and plugged in.

Flight deck by the nature of most modern airliners require two personnel at all times, therefore should be far less excuse to miss a call. In this instance, both pilots appear to have been caught out for not monitoring ATC. Do not need both to communicate with ground crew.

DaveReidUK

20th Jun 2016, 21:27

One should be monitoring ATC at all times. I repeat, at all times. :ugh:

The recording makes it clear that the tug crew had already prudently aborted the pushback by the time the controller tried unsuccessfully to contact the BA crew, so by that stage the damage had been done (or, rather, avoided in this instance).

Well done that ATCOWell apart from clearing the pushback into the path of another aircraft, that is. :ugh:

alwaysmovin

20th Jun 2016, 21:35

So a pilot doing his job is now being abused online for commenting on a **** up by someone else and some muppet deems it necessary to post it online......
Shannon ATC .. if you are actually a controller and who I think you are you are an embarassment to our profession posting this ****......bullying a guy online for just doing his job.....and finding the unprofessional behavior and mobbing mentality of a group of idiots 'hilarious'

T250

20th Jun 2016, 21:36

1:33
'I wasn't listening out because we were talking to the ground crew.'

Doesn't take 2 pilots to do that.

Whether the ATCO did or didn't actually tell or attempt to tell the BA crew about the other traffic (we don't know if video has been edited), the fact remains that the flight crew should but were not listening to ATC.

What if the ATCO did actually tell the BA to cancel push and they still didn't hear due to not listening. Hardly the ATCOs fault if crew can't maintain radio discipline.

A growing problem this summer!

DaveReidUK

20th Jun 2016, 22:14

the fact remains that the flight crew should but were not listening to ATC.

Nobody is going to argue with that, but in this instance it's irrelevant to the sequence of events that unfolded, which would otherwise have been:

Ground: "Speedbird 81D, stop pushback due aircraft passing behind you"

BA: "Ground, we have already stopped thanks to the vigilance of the tug crew"

Ground: "Ah, OK"

Hotel Tango

21st Jun 2016, 11:24

Well apart from clearing the pushback into the path of another aircraft, that is

Sorry Dave but you keep saying that and I disagree with you. I see it exactly as presented in Martin 123's post. Circumstances contributed more than the actual clearances given. One thing is for sure, the BA was not cleared to push into the Stobart. The BA was cleared to push BEFORE the Stobart. When Stobart got their push clearance they were given traffic information regarding the BA. What happened in actual fact is that BA pushed late and by this time Stobart had already started their push.

Cazalet33

21st Jun 2016, 11:55

One should be monitoring ATC at all times. I repeat, at all times.

Pretty basic stuff, really.

Saying, in effect, "I couldn't hear you 'cos I wasn't listening to you" is ever so slightly pathetic. Quite a lot pathetic, actually.

Gonzo

21st Jun 2016, 11:59

Cazalet33,

Assuming you're a pilot, have you never missed a call?

PDR1

21st Jun 2016, 12:07

You're a brave man, calling my wife pathetic...

PDR

PDR1

21st Jun 2016, 12:08

Sorry Gonzo - I missed your post because I was talking to Cazalet.

PDR

PDR1

21st Jun 2016, 12:11

Pretty basic stuff, really.

Saying, in effect, "I couldn't hear you 'cos I wasn't listening to you" is ever so slightly pathetic.

I'm way out of currency here (and only ever as a PPL at that) but on a safety-related call isn't the ATCO supposed to get a readback, or at least an acknowledgement, before proceeding to anything else?

PDR

Cazalet33

21st Jun 2016, 12:12

have you never missed a call?

I've never admitted to not having listened when I have missed a call on a mandatory frequency.

I've certainly never filed a voyage report on the basis of not having listened to a call I did not hear.

How about you, Gonzo?

Cazalet33

21st Jun 2016, 12:14

Sorry Gonzo - I missed your post because I was talking to Cazalet.

Hee hee!
:D

Edited to add: Are we allowed to laugh on this frequency?

PDR1

21st Jun 2016, 12:21

Eyethenkyew...

PDR

Gonzo

21st Jun 2016, 12:32

I've never admitted to not having listened when I have missed a call on a mandatory frequency.

Ah, so it's more the fact they said that they were talking to the ground crew rather than the fact they were?

I've certainly never filed a voyage report on the basis of not having listened to a call I did not hear.

I don't think this crew were going to file on that basis either. The pushback manoeuvre was stopped due to conflicting traffic, that's the basis for the report.

How about you, Gonzo?

How about me, what? Have I missed a call? How would I know? I don't think I have. However, I have frequently ignored calls from aircraft (and co-ordination attempts from other ATCOs) intentionally because I was dealing with something else that, at that time, was a priority.
Much like, one might think, a ground crew telling flight crew that they were stopping the pushback because of traffic going behind. That might take priority over listening to Ground.

And what's your definition of a 'mandatory frequency'?

Cazalet33

21st Jun 2016, 12:43

I have frequently ignored calls from aircraft (and co-ordination attempts from other ATCOs) intentionally because I was dealing with something else that, at that time, was a priority.

Good for you.

This erse (he wasn't Irish but I need to get around the autocensor) actually admitted that he wasn't even listening when he subsequently made an arse (dunno how I got away with that one!) of himself by bitching that he wasn't told.

DaveReidUK

21st Jun 2016, 12:47

Sorry Dave but you keep saying that and I disagree with you. I see it exactly as presented in Martin 123's post. Circumstances contributed more than the actual clearances given. One thing is for sure, the BA was not cleared to push into the Stobart. The BA was cleared to push BEFORE the Stobart. When Stobart got their push clearance they were given traffic information regarding the BA. What happened in actual fact is that BA pushed late and by this time Stobart had already started their push.

Then we have to agree to differ. Based on the transcripts (which I acknowledge may be incomplete), the BA still had a valid clearance to push, conditional only on the RYR having passed behind, at the point in time when the ground crew stopped the pushback. However long he took to move off the stand doesn't alter that.

So in the absence (so far) of any recording of the controller instructing the BA to stop, or at least advising him of the conflict at the time she cleared the Stobart to push, I stand by my view.

Cazalet33

21st Jun 2016, 12:58

Ah, so it's more the fact they said that they were talking to the ground crew rather than the fact they were?

No. The two should be synonymous, if the Nigel has any cred.

what's your definition of a 'mandatory frequency'?

I don't feel any urge to make such a definition, but I'm quite sure that listening to Ground when manoeuvring on the ground would fit it. Aren't you?

Una Due Tfc

21st Jun 2016, 13:22

It's stuff like this that makes me wish we had the same laws against putting ATC recordings on facetube and it's ilk that they have in the UK.

This is a partial recording, and even if it wasn't, we all have off days. I could make a mare of something and go home to find it all over the internet. Imagine dealing with that? Your kids getting stick in school because "your mummy/daddy nearly directed/flew an airplane into another airplane"

Bullsh*t

Gonzo

21st Jun 2016, 13:29

Una,

Doesn't stop them doing so though. However, it might stop news outlets embedding/playing the clips.

I agree, it would also stop the embarrassing speculation and judgement we can see in this thread.

Let's be honest, nobody has the full picture here. To have that right n ow you'd need to have been in the VCR, and in the cockpit.

Nobody was, therefore reports should be filed so it can be investigated.

It's not rocket science.

Evanelpus

21st Jun 2016, 15:06

Shannon's remarkably gone quiet since stirring the pot!

Cazalet33

21st Jun 2016, 17:12

stop the embarrassing speculation and judgement

:p
Bwahaha!

Can I say that on this frequency without being given 'time out'?

Cazalet33

21st Jun 2016, 17:20

It's stuff like this that makes me wish we had the same laws against putting ATC recordings on facetube and it's ilk that they have in the UK.

Embarrassing, innit?

Hand Solo

21st Jun 2016, 19:16

Judging by the heavily edited version on youtube and the slightly longer version on the LiveATC.net archive there doesn't appear to have been any attempt by the controller to call the Speedbird before the push was stopped by the ground crew. Perhaps the BA crew should have been more honest and said "We weren't listening because we were too busy talking to the ground crew dealing with the screw up".

LlamaFarmer

21st Jun 2016, 19:51

'I wasn't listening out because we were talking to the ground crew.'

Doesn't take 2 pilots to do that.

Actually depending on the circumstances, it could well require two pilots talking to the ground crew.

A new pilot in their early line training, operating the sector as PF, (meaning they're the one talking to ground, whilst PNF talks to ATC), may have never been to Dublin before so unfamiliar with the airfield, unfamiliar with what was going on around them, confused by another aircraft seemingly in conflict and the ground crew stopping the push when they weren't expecting it.

Training captain would be very wise to take up the communication with pushback crew, thus leaving ATC ground un-responded to.

I'm not saying that was the case here, but it is easily a possibility, and BA have been recruiting like mad, they have their FPP scheme with pilots who are fresh out of CPL training, plus a load of direct-entry type-rated pilots onto short haul with maybe not much more than 500 hours. Lots of training going all the time there.

Thing is, unless you're actually on a runway at the time, if you're on the ground and not moving, then listening to ATC and replying promptly are usually not (as) critical, when compared to other things (such as talking to the ground crew who just stopped your pushback before an accident occurred).

oggers

21st Jun 2016, 23:00

Carnage Matey!

21st Jun 2016, 23:26

I'm not sure that's a valid conclusion based on the layout of Dublin. The BA is on stand 20something, the ATR is on 125 and I think the Ryanair is going to 200. That means the Ryanair is only going to pass behind the BA about 10 seconds before he passes behind the ATR. When the ATR gets his conditional push clearance he is still waiting for the Ryanair to pass behind. It's entirely plausible that the BA is still then waiting for the Ryanair to pass behind. There's only two minutes between the ATR getting his push clearance and the BA stopping. Add a minute for the Ryanair to pass behind the BA and you can easily get two aircraft pushing within the space of a minute, with a clear statement from the controller that the ATR was supposed to give way to the BA in the subsequent dialogue.

alwaysmovin

22nd Jun 2016, 01:01

Carnage Matey!

22nd Jun 2016, 06:41

The BA would have been facing south and the Stobart facing north. Stand 125 is east of the BA and the inbound Ryanairs stand is south east of 125. So the inbound Ryanair would have passed behind the BA from their right shoulder to their left, then behind the Stobart from their left shoulder to their right. The BA would always have been on the left of the Stobart if the stands are correct.

oggers

22nd Jun 2016, 08:19

Carnage Matey!

I'm not sure that's a valid conclusion based on the layout of Dublin. The BA is on stand 20something, the ATR is on 125...I think the Ryanair is going to 200

The ATR was not on stand 125. That is where the ryanair was going. The ATR approval was "ryanair 737 to park on stand 125 behind you. When they're on stand push and start approved".

alwaysmovin:

If the BAW is told the traffic is passing behind right to left and the Stobart is told in the amended conditional clearance( which they seem to have ignored) that the BAW is to their left then the RYR passes behind the Stobart first and the BAW has to wait.....or have I heard that incorrectly?

You heard correctly. Worth noting that the Stobart ATR was not to push back until the ryanair was on stand, so had the BA been ready (as they are meant to be before requesting push) they should have been pushing back before the ATR and the ATR would not have been able to move until BA taxied from C. I believe that is what the controller had in mind.

alwaysmovin

22nd Jun 2016, 11:13

I haven't heard the entire recording so my thoughts are just on the edited version......
Apparently it doesn't matter what actually happened anyway because in the Irish online world a decision has been made .... she is a hero and he is the villain....Its like a witch hunt . The lack of professionalism by the other pilots adds to an already tense/ stressful situation imho and I'm just glad nothing happened . I didn't actually find him too arrogant at all ( I'm am ATCO) , I just thought he sounded exasperated with the situation and I felt that she was the one who had accusatory tone to her voice . First blaming the other pilot and then blaming him. If he did take too long to push back then she was right to be annoyed however none of us will know until that is clarified in a report and in the meantime a guy is being vilified on social media without facts.

alwaysmovin

22nd Jun 2016, 15:17

Just had a listen to the archive and I have come down on the side of the controller.

BA got their approval to push conditional on the ryanair passing clear.

2 minutes later the ATR got their approval to push "after the ryanair was on stand" and were cautioned that BA was also pushing back

About 1.5 minutes later there was a clipped tx from ATC advising of "an atr pushing back behind you to point B". That was most likely for BA but the callsign was clipped and nobody responded.

About 30 secs later the BA advised that the ground crew had stopped the push.

It took BA the best part of 4 mins to get moving. That was the problem. The ryanair they should have pushed behind was long gone and had been on the stand long enough for the ATR to push back and move behind the BA. The clipped warning call from ATC probably came about the same time that the BA started to move.

I have no axe to grind with BA, I think their crews are generally excellent but this wasn't their finest moment.

On a recording I just heard the BA got a clearance to push at time 0332 ( on the recording)..... The Stobart got a clearance to push a the recording time of 0428 and was told that there would be a RYR parking behind...... So the Ryanair had at that time not yet passed the Stobart or the BAW who would have been after the RYR ( traffic was passing right to left behind and the BA was to the left of the Stobart)..... At 06:20 the BA says he'd already been in discussion with ground about why his push had been stopped...... So in those 2 minutes the RYR still has to pass and the Baw has had his push stopped and has been in discussion..... So where do you get the 4 mins from? Unless the timings on the recording are also edited which I admit could be a possibility......
Also on another point in this recording the Stobart never seemed to acknowledge the later conditional clearance issued by the controller re the BA so maybe they didn't actually hear it....

terrain safe

22nd Jun 2016, 19:21

Am I really missing something in this Kangaroo court? We don't have the full tape recording, or the reports from the individuals concerned, therefore any total condemnation of either party seems very premature and excessive. As for the comments from the other pilots I really give up.

diver69

22nd Jun 2016, 19:29

Some facts. Yes, facts.
1. The YouTube clip is heavily edited.
2. The amended clearance to the Stobart ATR was partially blocked, crucially their callsign was blocked. This IS captured in the YouTube clip, and was also confirmed by DUB duty ATC manager to the ATR Captain later that evening after the tapes had been reviewed in the ATC listening room.
3. Because the amended clearance to the ATR was blocked it was never acknowledged by the Stobart crew, and as such the initial "subject to RYR" remained their valid clearance.
4. The BA took 5 mins to commence pushback, by which time the Stobart was well underway.

All facts, all verified.

DaveReidUK

22nd Jun 2016, 19:41

4. The BA took 5 mins to commence pushback, by which time the Stobart was well underway.

All facts, all verified.

Very useful.

Are you also able to verify how much time elapsed between the BA being conditionally cleared for pushback, subject to the Ryanair having passed behind, and the RYR actually entering its stand?

diver69

22nd Jun 2016, 19:47

The RYR was on stand (as per the clearance) before the Stobart pushed. The BA was stationary when the Stobart commenced its pushback.

Nimmer

22nd Jun 2016, 19:55

Yeah gods, who really cares, the controller made an error, the BA pilot was slow to push, the stobart pushed before he was meant to, as he got sick of waiting for the BA. The controller tried unsuccessfully to rectify the error, the BA pilot got stroppy.

Basically this sort of thing happens at busy airports, most ATCO's just live with it and don't feel the need to post on u tube, pprune, facebook or whatever. Enough.

diver69

22nd Jun 2016, 20:02

the stobart pushed before he was meant to, as he got sick of waiting for the BA.

Nimmer- please read post #45, it's not far away:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:e

DaveReidUK

22nd Jun 2016, 20:07

The RYR was on stand (as per the clearance) before the Stobart pushed. The BA was stationary when the Stobart commenced its pushback.

Well yes, both of those facts can be deduced from what happened. It's the elapsed time between the BA's pushback clearance and each of those subsequent events that I was attempting to ascertain, but if that timeline hasn't yet been established, fair enough.

the BA pilot was slow to push

the stobart pushed before he was meant to, as he got sick of waiting for the BA.Neither of those statements is as yet an established fact. See above.

diver69

22nd Jun 2016, 20:25

DaveReidUK - Sorry, I don't have those precise timelines. Any guesstimates on my behalf would not be accurate.

oggers

22nd Jun 2016, 21:03

alwaysmovin

So where do you get the 4 mins from?

Okay seeing as you ask. My timings are from atc.net. For clarity here is the timeline:

1503:50 Ryanair 737 cleared to stand 125, cross 34, M1, Link 4.
1504:20 BA push back approved when the Ryanair clear
1505:20 Call from ATC placing the Ryanair in vicinity of Link 4
1506:20 ATR push back approved when the Ryanair on stand
1507:50 Clipped tx from ATC "ATR pushing back behind you to point B"
1508:20 The call from BA advising that push back stopped by gnd crew

So, it was 3:30mins already after approval the BA had still not moved - or possibly just barely begun to move. That's where I got "it took BA the best part of 4 minutes to get moving". Obviously the BA could not move until the Ryanair was past. But at the very least the BA was slow enough for the Ryanair to get parked after passing the BA and the ATR to then move from its stand to "behind" the BA. That is not to justify the ATR jumping the qeue. It may be that BA's proximity to stand 125 was such that they too effectively had to wait until Ryanair was actually on the stand. I don't know.

So the Ryanair had at that time [when the ATR got conditional approval] not yet passed the Stobart or the BAW who would have been after the RYR ( traffic was passing right to left behind and the BA was to the left of the Stobart)

Not necessarily. The controller said to the ATR "Ryanair 737 to park on stand 125 behind you". We don't know where the Ryanair was at that point - only that it was not yet parked on stand. But the Ryanair was quite possibly past the ATR because this was 1 minute after the controller made a call to Stobart 26M placing the Ryanair at Link 4. So it seems likely the Ryanair was past the ATR, possibly even past the BA, but not yet on stand when the ATR got their approval.

All of this leaves 2 possibilities:

Either the Ryanair was on the stand (likely) and BA still hadn't moved so the ATR jumped the qeue and pushed back before BA. Or, the ATR started to push back before the Ryanair was even on the stand (unlikely). What is clear is the controller did not approve the ATR to move behind the BA and simply neglect to inform them, which is the complaint the BA made.

Anyway, I think nimmer has it:

Basically this sort of thing happens at busy airports, most ATCO's just live with it and don't feel the need to post on u tube, pprune, facebook or whatever. Enough.

...so yes, that's enough for me.

Edited to say having just seen diver69's post:

3. Because the amended clearance to the ATR was blocked it was never acknowledged by the Stobart crew, and as such the initial "subject to RYR" remained their valid clearance.

Sure that makes sense. The end.

Mike Flynn

22nd Jun 2016, 21:32

BA pilot gets the last word in and says "we will be filing a safety report".

For what ?

His lack of monitoring the radio?

DaveReidUK

22nd Jun 2016, 22:10

This is getting increasingly surreal.

What is clear is the controller did not approve the ATR to move behind the BA and simply neglect to inform them, which is the complaint the BA made.

That's not clear at all. In fact, the ATC transcript (per LiveATC) is entirely consistent with the controller having done exactly that.

If you are suggesting that the transmission you quoted at 15:07:50 was the controller informing the BA that the adjacent Lingus ATR was also about to push, you are mistaken:

1507:50 Clipped tx from ATC "ATR pushing back behind you to point B"

What the controller actually said was: "Aer Lingus ATR about to push back behind you to Point B, when they're clear your push and start approved to Point R".

But this was addressed to RYR7316 (requesting push from of the 12x stands) and duly acknowledged, not to the BA on the 200s (which in any case was cleared to Charlie, not Romeo).

So, based on the transcripts so far available, there is no evidence that the controller warned the BA that the ATR on an adjacent stand had also been cleared to push.

which is the complaint the BA made

Exactly.

ZOOKER

22nd Jun 2016, 22:35

It never, ever, bothered me that enthusiasts were listening in to what I did at work, because that's how I became interested in ATC.

I miss the job, the mental mechanics of doing the job, being involved in aviation, the wonderful people I had the privilege of working with......Even the bizarre stuff that came from 'management'.

But when I read sh*t like this, spread over 4 or 5 separate web-sites, I'm very glad I got out when I did.

Move along folks......Nothing to see here.

oggers

23rd Jun 2016, 00:27

DaveReidUK

Quote:
Originally Posted by oggers View Post
What is clear is the controller did not approve the ATR to move behind the BA and simply neglect to inform them, which is the complaint the BA made.
That's not clear at all. In fact, the ATC transcript (per LiveATC) is entirely consistent with the controller having done exactly that.

Is that you Speedbird 81D?

This is getting increasingly surreal.

I've already made my point and I don't wish to labour it. But I'm happy to correct you. So:

If you are suggesting that the transmission you quoted at 15:07:50 was the controller informing the BA that the adjacent Lingus ATR was also about to push, you are mistaken:
Quote:
Originally Posted by oggers View Post
1507:50 Clipped tx from ATC "ATR pushing back behind you to point B"
What the controller actually said was: "Aer Lingus ATR about to push back behind you to Point B, when they're clear your push and start approved to Point R".

Perhaps review the tape again before drawing this out any further. The transmission I quoted is not the one you think. It occured at the time I quoted +/- a couple of seconds. The one you quoted occured a minute before. Worth noting it was another one the BA crew didn't hear, if as they claim, the first they knew about the ATR was when the tug alerted them. Let's just sum those up:

1506:20 When the ATR got their approval
1506:40 When Ryanair 7316 got their approval conditional on the ATR
1507:50 When ATC transmitted "[clipped]ATR pushing back behind you to point B"

So:

So, based on the transcripts so far available, there is no evidence that the controller warned the BA that the ATR on an adjacent stand had also been cleared to push.

Based on the transcripts available the call was there. Based on what you heard, it wasn't. Same problem as at Dublin :ok:

Pin Head

23rd Jun 2016, 00:49

Hi

When cleared to descend when ready are you required to report when actually leaving your current level for the new level.

Anyone have a reference to the master document.

Thanks for help

Pin

Good Business Sense

23rd Jun 2016, 09:37

What I don't like is that one of our fellow professionals is under high pressure/stress and then it is increased markedly by the spat on the radio - that is the safety issue here not that the push back team had to do their job (no brainer - don't push the aeroplane back into the one behind) !!

Seriously minor issue which could have been dealt with off air.

AerRyan

23rd Jun 2016, 10:05

Ahh PPRuNe, the place where you can make up things and call them facts.

How about you listen tk EIDW frequency some day, and see how long you hear a single frequency without being crossed over.

And I'd like you to verify these "facts". By stating many times that they are facts, doesnt make them facts, it makes it indoctrination.

diver69

23rd Jun 2016, 11:07

1. The YouTube clip is heavily edited.
2. The amended clearance to the Stobart ATR was partially blocked, crucially their callsign was blocked. This IS captured in the YouTube clip, and was also confirmed by DUB duty ATC manager to the ATR Captain later that evening after the tapes had been reviewed in the ATC listening room.
3. Because the amended clearance to the ATR was blocked it was never acknowledged by the Stobart crew, and as such the initial "subject to RYR" remained their valid clearance.
4. The BA took 5 mins to commence pushback, by which time the Stobart was well underway.

AerRyan, the above post is based on a conversation between the Captain of the Stobart 96PL and the DUB duty ATC Manager.

In this regard, given that the conversation took place after the ATC Manager had time to review the tapes I offer it as fact.

If you elect to believe that no such conversation took place, or that the details of the conversation are falsified then that is your prerogative.

de facto

23rd Jun 2016, 11:16

I just hope this BA chap who obviously is always on top of his game,messes up one day and ATC saves his day following a "its ok we all make mistakes",no harm done.
Idiot.

AerRyan

23rd Jun 2016, 11:32

There is no basis for the video being heavily edited without the offering of the actual recording from Liveatc.net

From my experience, channels cross over eachother constantly, and its quite rare you even get as much as we have just heard in that video. Its quite likely this manager has no experience with the Dublin feed on Liveatc.net

diver69

23rd Jun 2016, 12:24

AerRyan, an entire conversation after things 'Kicked off", yet before handover to TWR between the Stobart and DUB GND, in which the Stobart made it clear that their pushback was subject to a RYR, with no mention of a BA, was not contained in the YouTube clip.

To be fair, this may not intentionally have been 'edited', it may just not as you say have been captured by the Liveatc.net clip. If this is the case then I apologise for using the term 'edited', if this implies deliberate editing by whoever created the Youtube clip. But an entire conversation is missing, hence I consider the clip an edited version of actual ATC recordings.

The omission is unfortunate, as the exchange makes it clear the Stobart did not 'cause' the situation as has been suggested on this and other sites.

Hand Solo

23rd Jun 2016, 13:49

But did the BA cause it? I can't hear readbacks of either the warning to BA or the changed pushback clearance to Stobart, which should at least have rung some alarm bells no?

blissbak

23rd Jun 2016, 14:29

I thing there is the wrong habit to perceive the safety report as a punishment ;
first of all if safety is or is suspected to be affected the report is mandatory, accondirng to the just culture we should learn from mistakes , there is a chance that the controller was overloaded and if it's the case, reasons should be investigated and solutions put in force, there is a chance she had'nt enough break time during the duty, once again we should discover why it happened.

To be honest I had several argumentative conversations on the frequency, sometimes I made a mistake, sometimes pilots got mad apparently for no reason because they thought to be right, but the Dublin BA pilot is far away from being rude, at least compared to what I'm used to .