Workload and readback
Thread Starter
Workload and readback
The scenario:
A light twin with a newish engine, at MTWA, single-pilot IFR departs Cambridge on a hot day with an instruction to climb straight ahead to 2000 ft then left to BKY at 3000 ft.
After first contact, Stansted Director comes back with an instruction to take up a radar heading of 150 after passing 2400 ft, cleared to enter controlled airspace and describes the limitation of the current radar service.
The pilot, slightly distracted by the need to get a 500 fpm rate of climb while keeping the new engine from frying, screws up the readback. Stansted patiently and politely corrects him, and all is well. LATCC continues to provide a super service throughout the flight, as always.
The question:
How much thought about pilot workload do you give when issuing relatively complex instructions, and when checking the readback?
Pilots should be capable of that level multitasking, but I'd much rather be following a SID or instructions received on the ground at that point of the flight. In this case, I suspect the change to the clearance in the air was unavoidable.
A light twin with a newish engine, at MTWA, single-pilot IFR departs Cambridge on a hot day with an instruction to climb straight ahead to 2000 ft then left to BKY at 3000 ft.
After first contact, Stansted Director comes back with an instruction to take up a radar heading of 150 after passing 2400 ft, cleared to enter controlled airspace and describes the limitation of the current radar service.
The pilot, slightly distracted by the need to get a 500 fpm rate of climb while keeping the new engine from frying, screws up the readback. Stansted patiently and politely corrects him, and all is well. LATCC continues to provide a super service throughout the flight, as always.
The question:
How much thought about pilot workload do you give when issuing relatively complex instructions, and when checking the readback?
Pilots should be capable of that level multitasking, but I'd much rather be following a SID or instructions received on the ground at that point of the flight. In this case, I suspect the change to the clearance in the air was unavoidable.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose the immediate question which springs to my mind is why was it single-pilot, given the situation with the aeroplane and a proposed flight into exceptionally busy airspace? Would it not have been safer to have had a P2?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, consideration is given to such things if possible, but if not, It's no way around it.
Actually, I would apreciate a call to TWR before take off stating that it would be a test flight, and that some consideration would be grately apreciated, if at all possible.
I have no problem beeing extra helpful if there is some special kind of flight, after all: It's Air traffic services
(yeah-yeah, I know the airspace mentioned here is a busy one
)
Actually, I would apreciate a call to TWR before take off stating that it would be a test flight, and that some consideration would be grately apreciated, if at all possible.
I have no problem beeing extra helpful if there is some special kind of flight, after all: It's Air traffic services
(yeah-yeah, I know the airspace mentioned here is a busy one
)
Thread Starter
A very sensible point, HD. It was a private, rather than PT flight, and the aircraft is always operated single-crew, though a spare pair of eyes and ears would have helped. I should add that it was the only moment of elevated workload on the flight, and that it was long past by the time we reached controlled airspace.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah the joys of single pilot flying.
Funny that it is usually single controller operation at the other end also.
When ATC are called while busy with something else eg on the phone coordinating they will tell the pilot to standby - perfectly acceptable.
When the pilot is busy he should likewise tell ATC to standby thus indicating that they are busy. This is also perfectly acceptable and uses less R/T than a series of half-heard or incorrectly read back clearances.
The initial clearance would have been safe and the following "re-clearance" would simply expedite the situation for you or another aircraft.
Regards,
DFC
Funny that it is usually single controller operation at the other end also.
When ATC are called while busy with something else eg on the phone coordinating they will tell the pilot to standby - perfectly acceptable.
When the pilot is busy he should likewise tell ATC to standby thus indicating that they are busy. This is also perfectly acceptable and uses less R/T than a series of half-heard or incorrectly read back clearances.
The initial clearance would have been safe and the following "re-clearance" would simply expedite the situation for you or another aircraft.
Regards,
DFC
Thread Starter
M609, also a good point. It wasn't a test flight as such, but I should have asked the tower to pass on a warning that I might not be able to make 500 fpm. While that rate wasn't actually difficult, it would have reduced my own workload.
And finally, to make it a trio of excellence, yes, DFC, I agree completely. A request to standby wasn't necessary in the circumstances, but in choosing to contact Director when I did, I made my own bed. I could have delayed the call, while monitoring, without incident.
And finally, to make it a trio of excellence, yes, DFC, I agree completely. A request to standby wasn't necessary in the circumstances, but in choosing to contact Director when I did, I made my own bed. I could have delayed the call, while monitoring, without incident.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC wrote
Not always ...you HEAR a single voice ..but there can (in the case of my approach radar unit) be an executive /radar controller an approach controller and even an assistant(though here not often) listening in .All can hear readbacks and can if neccesary prompt the "speaking" controller if something has been picked up incorrectly.
We stand a better chance of not making a readback error or general error due to workload than a pilot on single crew ops.
Funny that it is usually single controller operation at the other end also
Not always ...you HEAR a single voice ..but there can (in the case of my approach radar unit) be an executive /radar controller an approach controller and even an assistant(though here not often) listening in .All can hear readbacks and can if neccesary prompt the "speaking" controller if something has been picked up incorrectly.
We stand a better chance of not making a readback error or general error due to workload than a pilot on single crew ops.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Funny that it is usually single controller operation at the other end also
In answer to the original question I agree with M609 completely. A quick word on the phone before departure and not only am I happy to help in whatever way I can but I co-ordinate the flight and any spacial handling if required. Busy airspace or not, I remember what the S stands for - and that might include offering advice on the phone about the best time to conduct the flight so that the special needs can be accommodated.
Thread Starter
I think I probably overemphasised the non-standard nature of the flight to make the point of high workload. Any flight in a light aircraft departing IFR outside controlled airspace is likely to be high workload for the first couple of minutes. Let me try to make the point in a different way.
For an aircraft in its first couple of minutes of flight when pilot workload is high, I would suggest using simple instructions (e.g. "turn left heading 150") rather than more complex conditionals ("on passing 2400 ft turn left heading 150") and avoid multiple messages in a single call. I appreciate that controller workload does not always permit this simplification.
As a footnote, I've always found that LATCC controllers (and most of the others I've worked with) would bend over backwards to accommodate non-standard operations and requests, and I'm most grateful for it.
For an aircraft in its first couple of minutes of flight when pilot workload is high, I would suggest using simple instructions (e.g. "turn left heading 150") rather than more complex conditionals ("on passing 2400 ft turn left heading 150") and avoid multiple messages in a single call. I appreciate that controller workload does not always permit this simplification.
As a footnote, I've always found that LATCC controllers (and most of the others I've worked with) would bend over backwards to accommodate non-standard operations and requests, and I'm most grateful for it.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eastern is obviously blessed with luxuries that many of us do not enjoy
Am I?..I believe that our manning alllows for 2 in app/apr for a large portion of the day with Apr being self relieving. That is what is required for the level of traffic.Even if Apr has cleared off and I require another person to handle something like a special flight or emergency I can call on them.If you are working a one man band without support then more fool you!
I agree that the assistant (whom I said was not always there) has his/her own task to perform .....but IF listening, does speak english and should have a grasp of whats occuring around them .Teams is the buzzword these days .
As to the original scenario Spitoon is correct .
