Use of the words "Flight Level"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Belgium
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use of the words "Flight Level"
This is fast becoming a pet hate of mine.
When I give a pilot the clearance "Descend Flight Level 270" I expect the readback " descending flight level 270"
NOT...
"Descending 270"
There are incidents of level busting every week as a result of this laziness on R/T. If a pilot replies "descending 270" is he saying "descending two-seven-zero" or "descending to seven-zero"?
Its a simple thing, so you would imagine, but today I was astonished at the number of pilots, of all nationalities, who got it wrong, and required confirmation of their clearance, sometimes more than once
...In the worst case today, I asked the pilot twice to "confirm cleared flight level 270", twice had the response "affirm descending 270", so I told him in plain language, "ABC123 I need to hear the words Flight Level in your readback, please confirm your cleared level is flight level 270". I got the rather annoyed response from the pilot "Yes sir we ARE descending 270"
What do we have to do? How many more level busts are needed before pilots realise that correct R/T can save incidents, and incorrect or lazy R/T simply adds to the existing problem of R/T congestion?
I would love to get some feedback from pilots on this one, because I don't see any reasonable explanation for such a simple matter.
When I give a pilot the clearance "Descend Flight Level 270" I expect the readback " descending flight level 270"
NOT...
"Descending 270"
There are incidents of level busting every week as a result of this laziness on R/T. If a pilot replies "descending 270" is he saying "descending two-seven-zero" or "descending to seven-zero"?
Its a simple thing, so you would imagine, but today I was astonished at the number of pilots, of all nationalities, who got it wrong, and required confirmation of their clearance, sometimes more than once
...In the worst case today, I asked the pilot twice to "confirm cleared flight level 270", twice had the response "affirm descending 270", so I told him in plain language, "ABC123 I need to hear the words Flight Level in your readback, please confirm your cleared level is flight level 270". I got the rather annoyed response from the pilot "Yes sir we ARE descending 270" What do we have to do? How many more level busts are needed before pilots realise that correct R/T can save incidents, and incorrect or lazy R/T simply adds to the existing problem of R/T congestion?
I would love to get some feedback from pilots on this one, because I don't see any reasonable explanation for such a simple matter.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: my house
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
perhaps if this was switched to the relative pilots forum it might gain more mileage.
heartily agree with everything above, it's a very annoying, time wasting and dangerous habit
heartily agree with everything above, it's a very annoying, time wasting and dangerous habit
433,
Do you have the ability to file Air Safety Reports. It may seem a bit harsh, but to be honest whether the pilot repeated the indiscretion due to laziness or lack of knowledge it is an extrememy serious problem. We all make mistakes but on being picked up by ATC most people realise their mistakes and like me will apologise. Yesterday flying into the UK from the east. I was amazed at the number of pilots either cutting short or just not using their callsign. One of the London controllers had to tell a crew to use their callsign!
Do you have the ability to file Air Safety Reports. It may seem a bit harsh, but to be honest whether the pilot repeated the indiscretion due to laziness or lack of knowledge it is an extrememy serious problem. We all make mistakes but on being picked up by ATC most people realise their mistakes and like me will apologise. Yesterday flying into the UK from the east. I was amazed at the number of pilots either cutting short or just not using their callsign. One of the London controllers had to tell a crew to use their callsign!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Between EGGP and EGCC
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The state of R/T I feel is generally good. There are obviously exceptions to the norm but perhaps these belong to relatively few perpetrators.
One of my favourite bug-bears is a simple reply of "Roger" to a series of clearances given by ATC. Quite often challenged - as expected.
How would that said pilot like the reply of "Roger" from the controller to a specific request such as a clearance for descent? Might cause some further need for clarification - eh?
One of my favourite bug-bears is a simple reply of "Roger" to a series of clearances given by ATC. Quite often challenged - as expected.
How would that said pilot like the reply of "Roger" from the controller to a specific request such as a clearance for descent? Might cause some further need for clarification - eh?
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a defence but the flip side of the coin...
For some reason my company has recently moved away from the suggested alphanumeric call signs and we are now working with four digit callsigns. I (and numerous others) are moaning about this seriously.
In an instruction to turn left onto heading xxx, descend flight level xxx and advise that to Radar xxx.xxx, I now have 16 digits to remember in a read-back amongst other things.
I'm sure the protocol is that ATC shouldn't give me multiple instructions like that in one call (reference?) but it invariably does happen, whereupon the presumption is probably, whats good for the goose, is good for the gander.
Like I said, no defence, and I need reminding as much as the next guy/gal.
For some reason my company has recently moved away from the suggested alphanumeric call signs and we are now working with four digit callsigns. I (and numerous others) are moaning about this seriously.
In an instruction to turn left onto heading xxx, descend flight level xxx and advise that to Radar xxx.xxx, I now have 16 digits to remember in a read-back amongst other things.
I'm sure the protocol is that ATC shouldn't give me multiple instructions like that in one call (reference?) but it invariably does happen, whereupon the presumption is probably, whats good for the goose, is good for the gander.
Like I said, no defence, and I need reminding as much as the next guy/gal.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Belgium
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SR71
Under no circumstances should ATC gie you the next contact channel in the same transmission as a clearance in case of a misunderstood clearance there might not be the chance to correct it. Besides, for the reasons you outline, the example you give will, 9 times out of 10, result in "say again". I was always tought more haste less speed, its quite an accurate idiom. Like you said though....no excuse
Right Way Up
I will be doing that in the future, it is a factor which affects air safety, so I think its quite appropriate.
Watermeths
In an incident a couple of years ago, an ATC trasmission was cut off by another a/c calling in....the pilot to whom the descent clearance was made heard "ABC123 descend FL...." and responded "Roger we are descending ABC123" And proceeded to do so....the controller did NOT pick him up on it, and when questioned as to why he had bust his level he explained he was descending until further notice.
An isolated incident, with serious faults on both sides, but it shows just what can happen if correct R/T procedures are not followed.
Under no circumstances should ATC gie you the next contact channel in the same transmission as a clearance in case of a misunderstood clearance there might not be the chance to correct it. Besides, for the reasons you outline, the example you give will, 9 times out of 10, result in "say again". I was always tought more haste less speed, its quite an accurate idiom. Like you said though....no excuse
Right Way Up
I will be doing that in the future, it is a factor which affects air safety, so I think its quite appropriate.
Watermeths
In an incident a couple of years ago, an ATC trasmission was cut off by another a/c calling in....the pilot to whom the descent clearance was made heard "ABC123 descend FL...." and responded "Roger we are descending ABC123" And proceeded to do so....the controller did NOT pick him up on it, and when questioned as to why he had bust his level he explained he was descending until further notice.
An isolated incident, with serious faults on both sides, but it shows just what can happen if correct R/T procedures are not followed.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know you are not UK based 433 but can you nevertheless use the forum of CHIRP or have an equivalent ?
Of late I have had to on numerous occasions repeat myself to simply get a mandatory readback read back to me.
I am guilty as the next person for not always using standard RT but mandatory readbacks are exactly that, mandatory.
Of late I have had to on numerous occasions repeat myself to simply get a mandatory readback read back to me.
I am guilty as the next person for not always using standard RT but mandatory readbacks are exactly that, mandatory.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wales
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you keep getting the same guy making the same mistake MOR them. Its not worth the hassle at the subsequent board of inquiry " Why didn't you challenge the lack of / incorrect readback." Even better, make use of this open reporting thingy!! That starts at my unit this month sometime. Shoud be a hoot!!!!
Mats Part 1 - (I can't remember where) states that a suggested maximum of 3 instructions per transmission to avoid causing confusion.
TIO
Mats Part 1 - (I can't remember where) states that a suggested maximum of 3 instructions per transmission to avoid causing confusion.
TIO
