Uncharacteristic poor ATC into EBLG
Guest
Posts: n/a
Uncharacteristic poor ATC into EBLG
Hi guys, I would just like to get an ATC viewpoint on an unpleasant experience we had going into Liege yesterday, and do you think I am being unreasonable in thinking we recieved below standard service.
1. Brussells control did not advise us which approach to expect, we assumed it would be the ILS, and briefed accordingly. WSe were handed to Liege approach about 20 miles out, and again nothing was said about the expected approach. As we crossed the IAF the controller dropped us a bombshell by clearing us for the NDB approach! This in spite of the fact that the ILS was tuned and identified and worked perfectly. This caused a considerable workload at a critical part of the flight.
2. Shortly after touchdown and with 100 odd tons of fast moving aircraft still to be stopped,the tower controller calls us to tell us which exit to take! Again the call came at a very bad time and would have been much better recieved while on final.
What are the rules regarding ensuring that a crew is aware of the expected approach, and contacting an aircraft that is still clearly heavily involved in the landing rollout?
May I just say that this incident stands out all the more because of the very high standards we are now used to throughout Europe. Keep up the good work!
1. Brussells control did not advise us which approach to expect, we assumed it would be the ILS, and briefed accordingly. WSe were handed to Liege approach about 20 miles out, and again nothing was said about the expected approach. As we crossed the IAF the controller dropped us a bombshell by clearing us for the NDB approach! This in spite of the fact that the ILS was tuned and identified and worked perfectly. This caused a considerable workload at a critical part of the flight.
2. Shortly after touchdown and with 100 odd tons of fast moving aircraft still to be stopped,the tower controller calls us to tell us which exit to take! Again the call came at a very bad time and would have been much better recieved while on final.
What are the rules regarding ensuring that a crew is aware of the expected approach, and contacting an aircraft that is still clearly heavily involved in the landing rollout?
May I just say that this incident stands out all the more because of the very high standards we are now used to throughout Europe. Keep up the good work!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sleepless-Knight....
....I don't wish to appear rude as the controller was obviously at fault. But, why didn't you ask when you became sceptical at 20 miles? Did you not ask to continue on the ILS when at 8 miles and cleared for the NBD procedure? (I'm sure you did). Don't assume, it makes an ASS out of U and ME.
The only reason that I say that is because we are all human and sometimes make mistakes. You will probably find that the controller 'ticked' the Approach Box thinking that you had been informed. With that in mind, I would urge any pilots to ask me at any time if they think that I have forgotten something.
With regards to the roll-out....yes, it is bad practice to give an a/c an instruction when not fully under control. If important you can brief whilst on final. This happens often at our place and usually advise to roll out to the end (if not busy!) thus saving yr brakes!!!!!
Final option.......phone the tower controller and ask why something was done. I know this isn't always possible but things are often done for a reason, and I have no problems explaining why an a/c received the extra 30 track miles. We are all in it together, and you do get some pompus controllers who will get a power trip when people 'complain'.
At our unit, interaction is applauded. We are all learning!!!!!
End of waffle...zzzzzzzzzz
....I don't wish to appear rude as the controller was obviously at fault. But, why didn't you ask when you became sceptical at 20 miles? Did you not ask to continue on the ILS when at 8 miles and cleared for the NBD procedure? (I'm sure you did). Don't assume, it makes an ASS out of U and ME.
The only reason that I say that is because we are all human and sometimes make mistakes. You will probably find that the controller 'ticked' the Approach Box thinking that you had been informed. With that in mind, I would urge any pilots to ask me at any time if they think that I have forgotten something.
With regards to the roll-out....yes, it is bad practice to give an a/c an instruction when not fully under control. If important you can brief whilst on final. This happens often at our place and usually advise to roll out to the end (if not busy!) thus saving yr brakes!!!!!
Final option.......phone the tower controller and ask why something was done. I know this isn't always possible but things are often done for a reason, and I have no problems explaining why an a/c received the extra 30 track miles. We are all in it together, and you do get some pompus controllers who will get a power trip when people 'complain'.
At our unit, interaction is applauded. We are all learning!!!!!
End of waffle...zzzzzzzzzz
Guest
Posts: n/a
I can only speak for procedures in the UK, but your expected approach type should be on the ATIS and confirmed during the first contact with approach control. (You'd probably be justified in asking to hold for a few minutes or take extended vectors to sort out the cockpit briefing - not to mention the approach plates - if you had a completely unexpected approach procedure sprung on you at the last minute).
As for the post-touchdown R/T....I usually have trouble concentrating when bringing my car to a rapid stop, never mind a big plane! You'll probably find that there are very few controllers who'll pass anything except emergency info during take-off or landing phases, mainly 'cos we have big egos and like you to be hanging on every word we say, not concentrating on minor stuff like flaring....!
As for the post-touchdown R/T....I usually have trouble concentrating when bringing my car to a rapid stop, never mind a big plane! You'll probably find that there are very few controllers who'll pass anything except emergency info during take-off or landing phases, mainly 'cos we have big egos and like you to be hanging on every word we say, not concentrating on minor stuff like flaring....!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for the info guys. you are right, assumption is a dangerous thing, I have learned from this and will be asking in the future! Just a couple of comments tho, we were never suspicious and the ndb clearance was a complete surprise. one problem was that the ndb procedure was very different too the ils, it was not simply a case of flying a simmilar procedure without the ils.
A question? What could cause a controller to use another approach when the ils appears to an aircraft to be serviceable? I am sure there is a reason. unfortunately there was not time to call this bloke and ask him.
Finally, Liege does not have atis, we have to call tower 200 miles out and get the info. no approach was given but we were told 23L in use. I am sure most would have assumed the ils was available in the absence of info to the contrary.
I am glad to hear that the practice of calling aircraft on landing roll is not standard. In truth that particular scenario was compounded by the PNF choosing to answer the transmission rather than complete his call outs! I would have ignored it. Altogether it was pretty untidy and I am glad to leave it behind.
A question? What could cause a controller to use another approach when the ils appears to an aircraft to be serviceable? I am sure there is a reason. unfortunately there was not time to call this bloke and ask him.
Finally, Liege does not have atis, we have to call tower 200 miles out and get the info. no approach was given but we were told 23L in use. I am sure most would have assumed the ils was available in the absence of info to the contrary.
I am glad to hear that the practice of calling aircraft on landing roll is not standard. In truth that particular scenario was compounded by the PNF choosing to answer the transmission rather than complete his call outs! I would have ignored it. Altogether it was pretty untidy and I am glad to leave it behind.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sleepless,
Further to your query why you could not use a serviceable ILS. It may be either the ILS was radiating for test purposes only or it was about to switched off prior to maintenance requiring you to follow a different procedure. ( However you should have been told the approach you could expect)
schnapper
Further to your query why you could not use a serviceable ILS. It may be either the ILS was radiating for test purposes only or it was about to switched off prior to maintenance requiring you to follow a different procedure. ( However you should have been told the approach you could expect)
schnapper
Guest
Posts: n/a
Or.......
....the controller may have been buying time! Perhaps there was some maint work on the runway or cleared and graded areas. Alternatively, as I think happened, you were the subject ot a trainee controller who may of needed to conduct an NDB app for his purposes. Giving you the NDB reduces the workload of the controller and put's the onus on you!
Either way, as you say a day best forgotten - for you, yr pnf and definitely the controller!!!
Keep safe
....the controller may have been buying time! Perhaps there was some maint work on the runway or cleared and graded areas. Alternatively, as I think happened, you were the subject ot a trainee controller who may of needed to conduct an NDB app for his purposes. Giving you the NDB reduces the workload of the controller and put's the onus on you!
Either way, as you say a day best forgotten - for you, yr pnf and definitely the controller!!!
Keep safe
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bright-ling,
what the hell are you talking about,it is not within any controllers mind set to give false information to an aircraft on approach...not only do i find your reply insulting and inaccurate..I must also question whether you have anything to do with aviation in order to suggest that this is a possibility...Controllers do require to monitor NDB approaches or complete SRA approaches for their yearly competency,however this is always done strictly with the Captains consent.
you show your utter incompetence by referring to the cleared and graded area...NO landing is permitted without this being clear no matter what the type of approach....i suggest you go back to flying microsoft flightsim and leave the real world to the pros!
what the hell are you talking about,it is not within any controllers mind set to give false information to an aircraft on approach...not only do i find your reply insulting and inaccurate..I must also question whether you have anything to do with aviation in order to suggest that this is a possibility...Controllers do require to monitor NDB approaches or complete SRA approaches for their yearly competency,however this is always done strictly with the Captains consent.
you show your utter incompetence by referring to the cleared and graded area...NO landing is permitted without this being clear no matter what the type of approach....i suggest you go back to flying microsoft flightsim and leave the real world to the pros!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry I Have n't been around for a while, another series of sleepless nights far from the www!
Well it would appear all is cleared up! Thanks Avman. All the more reason to be prepared. Incidentally if it is common to do this in order to transfer workload or buy time I would have to say this is not a great way to go about it unless you can provide some advance warning. Then I suppose I'm biased!
Thanks all
Well it would appear all is cleared up! Thanks Avman. All the more reason to be prepared. Incidentally if it is common to do this in order to transfer workload or buy time I would have to say this is not a great way to go about it unless you can provide some advance warning. Then I suppose I'm biased!
Thanks all
Guest
Posts: n/a
Schnapper.....
...thankyou for yr abusive reply. What a pleasure it is to read yr intelligent and constructive remarks. NOT.
Apart from stating the bleeding obvious about cleared and graded areas, what exactly was the content of yr thread? (I know the rules, but occasionally have given an a/c extended routeing giving the Work In Progress more time to vacate). You haven't actually answered any questions thrown up in this thread.
When did I say that it was in a controllers mindset to give false information??? In fact, it was NO of info here, not false info.
Also, I am aware that we monitor NDB app's. If you re-read my text it says "REDUCES the workload on controllers". I never even mentioned SRA's. (If you weren't aware, are completely different to NBD Approaches).
Although we all hide under the veil of anonymity, at least I give my Occupation and general location. Perhaps you would like to share that with us..... go on, you're no doubt the training Capt for the Space Shuttle or something. (Or even Liege App Controller???)
Also, the if you read the whole text, I am more 'critical' (if at all) of Sleepless Knight for not confirming the type of approach. He didn't take offence, as it was written in a context to show constructive criticism - none of us are perfect (Are you??)
I am sorry if you found any of posts insulting to you personally. None of my colleagues found it upsetting so why should you?
So, I look forward to your intelligent, fact based reply.
Anyway, I've lowered myself enough to reply to yr post. I'm back to my Flightsim.
...thankyou for yr abusive reply. What a pleasure it is to read yr intelligent and constructive remarks. NOT.
Apart from stating the bleeding obvious about cleared and graded areas, what exactly was the content of yr thread? (I know the rules, but occasionally have given an a/c extended routeing giving the Work In Progress more time to vacate). You haven't actually answered any questions thrown up in this thread.
When did I say that it was in a controllers mindset to give false information??? In fact, it was NO of info here, not false info.
Also, I am aware that we monitor NDB app's. If you re-read my text it says "REDUCES the workload on controllers". I never even mentioned SRA's. (If you weren't aware, are completely different to NBD Approaches).
Although we all hide under the veil of anonymity, at least I give my Occupation and general location. Perhaps you would like to share that with us..... go on, you're no doubt the training Capt for the Space Shuttle or something. (Or even Liege App Controller???)
Also, the if you read the whole text, I am more 'critical' (if at all) of Sleepless Knight for not confirming the type of approach. He didn't take offence, as it was written in a context to show constructive criticism - none of us are perfect (Are you??)
I am sorry if you found any of posts insulting to you personally. None of my colleagues found it upsetting so why should you?
So, I look forward to your intelligent, fact based reply.
Anyway, I've lowered myself enough to reply to yr post. I'm back to my Flightsim.
