"Decend to maintain"
"Decend to maintain"
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,034
Likes: 1
From: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
I've seen the phrase mentioned as a mitigating measure when it comes to level busts. I think it was in one of the eurocontrol pamflets that appears in the mailbox at work all the time.
Level busts are not exactly rare......
Level busts are not exactly rare......
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
From: Brisbane, Australia
Not in the Oz documents. Seems to me like tautology.
If you're instructed to descend to F250, doesn't that mean when you get to F250 you'll maintain that level?
Next thing you know, we'll be acknowledging acknowledgements.
If you're instructed to descend to F250, doesn't that mean when you get to F250 you'll maintain that level?
Next thing you know, we'll be acknowledging acknowledgements.
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 5
From: South of England
Have come across this at present unit. Seems to be the result of some Jobsworth wanting to be seen to be doing something as the result of an incident. If it does not comply with published phraseology, this sort of thing is a menace as it just devalues the standardisation that would otherwise exist.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
From: N 43° 39' 54'' E 7° 12' 53''
I agree that's americanizing, but in the sense of taking every single precaution so that nobody can sue you ...
More seriously, some chaps in the quality/safety management services have suddenly figured out that the word "maintain" might prevent some level busts... so here we go ! now we have to use it ! or at least we're advised to use it... but would the word "advised" make any difference in case of accident ?
Now, another example of some great thinking: a plane has been cleared on delivery on some std departure up to level XX. Now at first contact, we're advised to say "maintain level XX on reaching, I'll call you back for higher" and not to use "climb" if not giving further climb...
I agree that safety is a serious issue, but if you consider every single little possibility of a misunderstanding or of a mistake, you'll end up making 5 minutes sentences as clearances... Are you supposed to make the rules for one stupid fool ?
And now let's imagine that you have eradicated any possibility of misunderstanding in the language, now what happens if the pilot selects level XX plus or minus 10 instead of XX and still reads back correctly, because he's thinking about the cute steward/stewardess that just brought her/him lunch... Will we ask to have the selected level on our screen through S mode radar ? And what if the controller makes a mistake, will we ask to have two ATCs on a position so that the second controller can check on the first one ? And maybe a third one, to check on the second ...?
In my unit, we used to have some level busts problems with a circling approach with departures climbing 1500ft and arrivals in opposite direction descending 2500ft. Guess what the management suggested ? That there should be one more controller on the Vcr looking at the radar screen to see if those two levels were maintained correctly...
We're living in an unperfect world, and we're only humans, and we've to cope with it every day!
So now, I'll use that phraseology, but please don't add more because some guy in a well heated office has decided that to cover up his ass he'll invent some new and revolutionnary way of preventing accidents by adding something .
Oh and by the way, I'm not working in The UK, but in France... Looks like it's now spreading...
More seriously, some chaps in the quality/safety management services have suddenly figured out that the word "maintain" might prevent some level busts... so here we go ! now we have to use it ! or at least we're advised to use it... but would the word "advised" make any difference in case of accident ?
Now, another example of some great thinking: a plane has been cleared on delivery on some std departure up to level XX. Now at first contact, we're advised to say "maintain level XX on reaching, I'll call you back for higher" and not to use "climb" if not giving further climb...
I agree that safety is a serious issue, but if you consider every single little possibility of a misunderstanding or of a mistake, you'll end up making 5 minutes sentences as clearances... Are you supposed to make the rules for one stupid fool ?
And now let's imagine that you have eradicated any possibility of misunderstanding in the language, now what happens if the pilot selects level XX plus or minus 10 instead of XX and still reads back correctly, because he's thinking about the cute steward/stewardess that just brought her/him lunch... Will we ask to have the selected level on our screen through S mode radar ? And what if the controller makes a mistake, will we ask to have two ATCs on a position so that the second controller can check on the first one ? And maybe a third one, to check on the second ...?
In my unit, we used to have some level busts problems with a circling approach with departures climbing 1500ft and arrivals in opposite direction descending 2500ft. Guess what the management suggested ? That there should be one more controller on the Vcr looking at the radar screen to see if those two levels were maintained correctly...
We're living in an unperfect world, and we're only humans, and we've to cope with it every day!
So now, I'll use that phraseology, but please don't add more because some guy in a well heated office has decided that to cover up his ass he'll invent some new and revolutionnary way of preventing accidents by adding something .
Oh and by the way, I'm not working in The UK, but in France... Looks like it's now spreading...
Ohcirrej
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,919
Likes: 0
From: This is the internet FFS.........
Ah, that great little word "maintain"
Over here on this small North American continent, the term "maintain" is used as the command instruction to change an altitude. In Blighty, the use is something totally different, and in fact could lead to a major misunderstanding.
Example in Canada: "ACA123, maintain 6000". ACA123 is cleared to 6000'
Example in UK: "ACA123 descend and maintain 6000". No major issue, ACA is still cleared to 6000' (albeit twice
)
Now, take this example:
Pilot: "ACA123 level 6000" (as they do here)
Canada ATC "ACA123 Roger" (or whatever)
UK ATC "ACA123 maintain" (as I used to do)
Now, the pilot as heard the command instruction "maintain". First though, listen out for the new altitude associated with the command "maintain"?
Hmmmmm......
Over here on this small North American continent, the term "maintain" is used as the command instruction to change an altitude. In Blighty, the use is something totally different, and in fact could lead to a major misunderstanding.
Example in Canada: "ACA123, maintain 6000". ACA123 is cleared to 6000'
Example in UK: "ACA123 descend and maintain 6000". No major issue, ACA is still cleared to 6000' (albeit twice
)Now, take this example:
Pilot: "ACA123 level 6000" (as they do here)
Canada ATC "ACA123 Roger" (or whatever)
UK ATC "ACA123 maintain" (as I used to do)
Now, the pilot as heard the command instruction "maintain". First though, listen out for the new altitude associated with the command "maintain"?
Hmmmmm......
Naughty but Nice
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
From: Southern England
I know I probably shouldn't but...
Okay, I do use it.
If I'm giving climb or descent and I know I should be able to give continuous further climb/descent I say nothing.
If however I know the guy is going to have to level due to crossing traffic, then I usually say "Climb/descend and maintain FLxxx trraffic to cross left/right...." etc. Why? I guess I'm hoping that they might then use an appropriate ROC and not set off TCAS. (I know, it's up to them, I'm not trying to fly the plane)
I have to say also that I use this more with foreign crews where English may be a little poor, I hope it helps with situational awareness.
Similarly I often say "maintain FLxxx on reaching, traffic to cross ......" when the planes are climbing or descending. Obviously I won't say on reaching if they are already there!
I'm all for standard R/T, though I know I'm not perfect, but more importantly I'm for anything that might prevent an incident and if it stops one level bust with implications isn't that a good thing?
BTW, how many times have I heard "C/S reaching FLxxx for further" for me to say "Roger, maintain traffic to cross" and then be told "Yes we've got him on TCAS"
I've no doubt there will now be lots of people tell me why I shouldn't, and I promise to keep an open mind.
Cheers,
N
"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."
If I'm giving climb or descent and I know I should be able to give continuous further climb/descent I say nothing.
If however I know the guy is going to have to level due to crossing traffic, then I usually say "Climb/descend and maintain FLxxx trraffic to cross left/right...." etc. Why? I guess I'm hoping that they might then use an appropriate ROC and not set off TCAS. (I know, it's up to them, I'm not trying to fly the plane)
I have to say also that I use this more with foreign crews where English may be a little poor, I hope it helps with situational awareness.
Similarly I often say "maintain FLxxx on reaching, traffic to cross ......" when the planes are climbing or descending. Obviously I won't say on reaching if they are already there!
I'm all for standard R/T, though I know I'm not perfect, but more importantly I'm for anything that might prevent an incident and if it stops one level bust with implications isn't that a good thing?
BTW, how many times have I heard "C/S reaching FLxxx for further" for me to say "Roger, maintain traffic to cross" and then be told "Yes we've got him on TCAS"
I've no doubt there will now be lots of people tell me why I shouldn't, and I promise to keep an open mind.
Cheers,
N
"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
From: Brisbane, Australia
Northerner,
I can see where you're coming from. But over in Oz we prefer to say something like,
" Descend to F250, expect further descent in 3 minutes due crossing traffic."
Same sort of thing, just a different way of saying it. I still think, however, that saying "descend/climb and maintain" in other than this case is superflous R/T.
I can see where you're coming from. But over in Oz we prefer to say something like,
" Descend to F250, expect further descent in 3 minutes due crossing traffic."
Same sort of thing, just a different way of saying it. I still think, however, that saying "descend/climb and maintain" in other than this case is superflous R/T.
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
From: Brisbane, Australia
M609,
I'm not a tower controller these days (not since 1982) so I'm not going to comment about tower phraseology.
BOAC,
thanks, I try to make all my trainees keep the PIC in the picture as much as possible. Don't know anything about the other thread, never heard a thing about this in Oz.
I'm not a tower controller these days (not since 1982) so I'm not going to comment about tower phraseology.
BOAC,
thanks, I try to make all my trainees keep the PIC in the picture as much as possible. Don't know anything about the other thread, never heard a thing about this in Oz.
Last edited by DirtyPierre; 3rd May 2005 at 22:27.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
From: UK
Changing subject slightly but wondering if you guys can clarify something
What is the correct way of requesting descent to FL100
Is it
a) Request FL One Hundred
b) Request descend one hundred
c) Request descent FL One Zero Zero
d) We would like to descend to FL One zero zero
The reason I ask is that this is the question I was faced with today in a JAA ATPL exam. I thought the "most correct" answer is (a).
What do you guys think ?
What is the correct way of requesting descent to FL100
Is it
a) Request FL One Hundred
b) Request descend one hundred
c) Request descent FL One Zero Zero
d) We would like to descend to FL One zero zero
The reason I ask is that this is the question I was faced with today in a JAA ATPL exam. I thought the "most correct" answer is (a).
What do you guys think ?
