'Give way to......' on GMC

[Gonzo]

Have a look at:

this thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83770)

So, what's the consensus on the meaning of 'give way to....'?

I must admit, it never struck me that a crew could think "Oooh, look, we've got room to nip out in front here, he only said 'give way'...." Can't say that it's ever happend to me.

Gonzo.

[Spitoon]

Rarely use 'give way' myself for this very reason - much prefer 'after the ....'. Far less likely to be misunderstood in my experience.

[fourthreethree]

Ok so I'm not a rated tower controller, but a mere area guy, but in my opinion the phraseology used was perfectly unambiguous. The pilot was told to give way to specific traffic. Why the discussion? One joker suggested that "give way" meant the same as a give way sign on the road, ie you can pull out if there is room. := := Is he honestly expecting anyone to take him seriously? People who have their own translations of atc instructions are putting people at risk in what is primarily a safety industry.

As for doggydogtrained, who posted the topic, when will people realise that tact and diplomacy are needed to improve pilot/controller relations, not his "all guns blazing" "I just had an angry pill for breakfast" attitude.

[Hooligan Bill]

The joker replies,

As I have put on the thread in Reporting points I suggest everybody reads Rule 37 4 (b) of the ANO and then tells me the aircraft that has been given the 'give way' instruction can not pass ahead of the other aircraft if safe to do so.

[fourthreethree]

ok joker Bill, you just carry on taking atc instructions into your own hands, to hell with common sense.

Be sure to quote rule 37 4(b) of the ANO in your incident report.

[Duke of Burgundy]

"Give way - allow something or someone to be or go first."

This is one the Oxford English Dictionary meanings of the phrase and to me defines exactly what the ATC instruction "Give Way" is saying.

In my opinion Rule 37 4(b), whilst specifying action to be taken by pilots in case of danger of collision, allows the pilot of the aircraft required to give way under the rule discretion to apply common sense if no actual danger exists.

I don`t believe that discretion includes deciding whether or not to comply with an ATC instruction.

[250 kts]

Hooligan,

I see from your profile that you claim to be an ATCO. Well I just hope that the LCE scheme at your unit is robust enough that your licence is pulled at the first opportunity!!

[bookworm]

Duke of B

Good points. I don't think anyone is debating whether ATC instructions should be complied with or not, just what those ATC instructions mean.

So where is "give way" defined? It is listed but not defined in PANS-RAC.

HB's point is also well made. Rule 37(4)(b) suggests that it is possible in the eyes of the ANO to "give way" to another aircraft while crossing well clear ahead of it.

Like most pilots my introduction to the words "give way" are through the rules of the road, where it clearly means something slightly different from "allow precedence". As such, its use in an aviation context seems ambiguous and it would be nice to see it defined in an ICAO or CAA document. Until then, it seems sensible, as Spitoon suggests, to make instructions more explicit.

Over the years, most misunderstandings in phraseology that have resulted in tragic consequences would have been regarded by at least one involved party as "common sense". I'm not sure that's a high enough standard for aviation.

[spekesoftly]

Yes, an excellent post by bookworm, especially the last sentence.

[Barnaby the Bear]

Here here. .........Seems alot of angry pills have been taken. I prefer not to use 'Give way' at all thus hopefully no confusions.:}

[fourthreethree]

Good points, well made all round.

Any phraseology which is prone to misunderstanding, or needing one person's common sense, which can differ from another person's common sense, should, of course, be avoided. Heck, thats just common sense, right?:)

However, my point remains that in this case, the controller quite clearly gave in instruction to the Ryanair to allow the other aircraft to pass, hence the use of give way to that specific aircraft. If the Ryanair then wishes to use the text book interpretation of the instruction as opposed to what was clearly required of her, then she is playing a very dangerous game. She may be cleared of blame in an incident investigation, but why not avoid the investigation in the first place.

Another point to make is that she obviously understood the instruction in the way it was meant, because her response when asked what she was doing was "I thought you meant the other one," meaning the first of the two airbus's. If she had believed the instruction to be as my good pal Hooligan Bill would have us believe then surely she would have indicated this with her response, rather than go straight on the defensive.

[Route Papa 45]

It's when you have to use "give way to..." on radar that you really need to worry. :eek:

[tori chelli]

Whilst I acknowledge the point made about Rule 37 4 b) I thought it was understood that Pilots were expected to interpret "give Way to" as "go No2 to" . This is why SRG put an entry into the MATS Pt1 that "Give Way" must not be used to vehicle drivers - sec2 Ch1 Pg5 para 8.3 because they might put the Highway Code interpretation on the instruction..

SRG must have given Rule 37 4b) shome consideration schurley?!!!

p.s I agree - "use after the..." instead.

[Gonzo]

Route Papa 45,

Heard recently of one of my colleagues doing Air Departures who told an a/c to 'Hold Position'..........the reply......."Errrrr, we're airborne!"

Does that count?

Gonzo.

[mainecoon]

gonzo
not if it was a sea king mate:p

[Duke of Burgundy]

Sorry to drag this out chaps but with the greatest of respect, I think that Hooligan Bill`s interpretation of Rule 37 4(b) is incorrect. Also The Rules of the Air are neither ATC instructions nor phraseology but are simply rules for pilots written in plain, non-technical English.

The rule in question states that "when two flying machines are on converging courses, the one which has the other on its right shall give way to the other and shall avoid crossing ahead of the other unless passing well clear of it.

The conjunction "and" is crucial to the meaning. It joins two clauses having equal weight. If there is a danger of a collision then the relevant aircraft allows the other to go first by giving way.

If, however, the two aircraft are on converging courses but the one which would be required to give way can pass well clear ahead, then there is no need for him to give way.

I think for Hooligan Bill`s interpretation to be valid the "and" would need to be "but".

This IMHO does not change the meaning of "give way" which I contend remains as in my first post.

As former President Clinton famously said in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky affair, "It depends what you mean by `is`."

In this case it depends what you mean by `and`.

[250 kts]

But surely this is assuming there is no positive control being exercised. This was not the case described initially-the ATCO gave an instruction which was not adhered to,simple as that.

[Route Papa 45]

Gonzo,

I have sympathy with the departures guy/gal. During those good old formative years at the college i did the polar opposite and told an a/c to orbit in it's present position. top marks to the input guy who neatly span the cherokee on taxi way charlie without compromising safety!

[Hooligan Bill]

Sorry I have not replied earlier but I have been away on my hols. For those who want my licence taken away, do not worry, I never use 'give way' anyway, I prefer to keep positive control and use after or follow. As many have said the give way instruction is open to interpretation, as the only place it is anywhere near defined is in rule 37 and given the amount of discussion generated, maybe it needs defining properly.

[Evil J]

During my training at a certain London airport with 2 runways I was told not to use "follow" on GMC because pilots might take this a bit too literally and follow the a/c all the way to and possibly on to the runway-I know this sounds a bit far fetched (but I saw it happen (and was duly b@*?cked by the Deps controller!)) and in the context of this thread is obtuse but if we can't credit pilots with at least a little common sense and accept that some will occassionally try and extract the michael then we may as well start moving one plane at a time!! If someone tries it on with me, then for about the next 2weeks that operator tends to be No. 2 when all other things are equal; unprofessional and petty maybe but it serves to balance the scales for those who do do things properly!!