first calls to approach

[Del Prado]

is the QNH required on first call to approach? is this requested on the ATIS?

It seems like a waste of time. If the crew gets it right it still wastes a couple of seconds. However if they get it wrong, I've got to go back in and correct them. But they're at a flight level, when they descend to an altitude, I'll give them the latest QNH then. Why do they have to tell me it on first call?

If they spent a bit more time getting their aircraft type correct, rather than just saying an 'airbus' or 'a 400', I'd be a lot happier too.

[rant over]

[BOAC]

Not as I understand it, but more and more of my F/Os are doing it, and since most of them are 'low hour' I can only assume it comes from 'training'.

Edited to add: Whilst I understand the concern over level busts on departure, I cannot see the need to repoirt QNH to delivery whilst also stating the relevant ATIS code. While I'm at it, has MAN yet Notammed or 'ATIS'd' the requirement to state SID designator with Tower? I've been pretending I did not know about it............

[Del Prado]

Thanks for that BOAC, it is getting more common. You must be right that it comes from 'training', I think someone, somewhere is pushing this as a good idea.
Unless it's confusion between delivery/director.

So often i get someone checking in with a "and the QNH is...err....umm....", just as I want to turn someone else base leg or onto finals.

I don't want to point the finger but is there anyone from Easy able to comment?

[Capt's Little Helper]

From CAP413

7.5 Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) UK
7.5.1 To alleviate RTF loading at some busy airports, Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) messages are broadcast to pass routine arrival/departure information on a discrete RTF frequency or on an appropriate VOR. Pilots inbound to these airports are normally required on first contact with the aerodrome ATSU to acknowledge receipt of current information by quoting the code letter of the broadcast. Pilots of outbound aircraft are not normally required to acknowledge receipt of departure ATIS except when requested on the actual ATIS broadcast. If, however, pilots report receipt of a departure ATIS broadcast the QNH should be included thereby allowing ATC to check that the quoted QNH is up-to-the-minute.

CLH

[BOAC]

Thanks CLH - but apart from the well-known CAP, I still do not see the actual 'need'. If you report an ATIS code which is current, surely the QNH is 'current'? If your code has expired, ATC will correct you.

[Del Prado]

thanks for the reference CLH, is there anything in CAP413 about arriving aircraft having to give QNH?

[Capt's Little Helper]

BOAC,
Agreed, there is no "actual" need to readback QNH with the ATIS code when checking in with approach. I would say that need there is a genuine need to give QNH on requesting departure clearance etc as not all places give QNH with taxi instructions and this could be the only QNH x-check before departure.

DP,
The CAP413 reference above is the only info I could find on reading back ATIS info, and I can find no explicit instruction the arriving a/c have to give QNH.

[BOAC]

Agreed, there is no "actual" need to readback QNH with the ATIS code when checking in with approach. I would say that need there is a genuine need to give QNH on requesting departure clearance etc as not all places give QNH with taxi instructions and this could be the only QNH x-check before departure.

- I'm a little confused. My comment was about giving QNH on contact with 'Departures', not to approach.

I cannot follow the logic of your post on departure calls? The check-in with 'Departures' where an ATIS code is given (with or without a QNH statement) is certainly not the "only QNH x-check before departure" since any change in QNH from that of the QNH given in the code you announced to departures would automatically be given to you by ATC at an appropriate moment?

Anyway, back to DP - I'll see what our 'trainers' have to say about where this is creeping in from.

[Capt's Little Helper]

So what if you didn't give QNH with ATIS code, you didn't get a QNH on taxi and there was no change in QNH before you departed. Where is the check?

Plus, I made reference to " departure clearance" not "deparatures."

Rgds,
CLH

[Spiney Norman]

BOAC....
Just an answer to your point about the MAN SID readback to tower before departure. This was introduced due to the number of westerly departures that having been given the Honiley depature, then flew the LISTO, and vice versa. Even though they'd read it back correctly! They are the only SID's that require the pre departure check and that is done by individual query from the Air controller. I'm not aware of any moves to incorporate it onto SID plates and thus make it a pilot responsibility to state the SID without being asked. It is handy if you do though. I realise it's a bit unwieldy but it works and incorrectly flown SID's on these departures are down to nil.

Spiney

[BOAC]

Thanks Spiney - I know why it is there! I cannot understand why it cannot be notammed if it is a 'procedure'?

[Spiney Norman]

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'll have a word with the boss! It may be in the pipeline but if not then I think it's about time it was.

Spiney

[Roffa]

Don't want QNH on first contact with LHR approach.

C/S, type, atis letter and cleared level is all, thanks

If we don't get type or cleared level we have to come back and ask you for it.

You'll obviously get the QNH on first descent out of a flight level.

p.s. and please give callsign only only when instructed to do so...not on first contact with approach on handover to 119.725 or 134.975 as then we have to come back and ask you for everything.

[MaxReheat]

OK, while we're on about readbacks, why, when I check in with Nowheresville Approach with 'Nowheresville - Airline 123, Boeing 7blah with information X Qnh 1003' does the ATC come back with 'Airline 123 - Nowheresville, information X Qnh 1003'. I know - I've just told you that! If there's a change then by all means say, and thank you for doing so, but, like these stupid frequencies, we're wasting valuable air-time and breath.

QNH is recorded on the flightdeck from arrival or departure ATIS. It can be confirmed on arrival and cross-checked when clearance is given to descend an altitude - and on departure with it can be given with taxi clearance. I see no other requirement to mention it unless it changes.

[bookworm]

If we don't get type or cleared level we have to come back and ask you for it.

It seems to be the trend to ask the pilot, on first call or frequency change, to confirm more and more aspects of current clearance, like cleared level and SID, which I presume is to make sure the pilot has it right rather than because one ATC sector doesn't know what the other has done. In these days of sensitivity to level-bust risks, I can accept that. Sometimes we screw up and a safety net makes some sense.

But what possible value is there in cluttering up the RT with information like type which is available on the FPL and is really very unlikely to change while the aircraft is airborne? Is NATS incapable of putting together an IT system that puts this information on the controller's screen?

[Spiney Norman]

Bookworm. Although I'd agree with you that the R/T is being increasingly cluttered here's a typical example of why we need type....arriving aircraft checks in with approach but no type confirmation. FPL says ATP. Vectored into the sequence and....Out of the clouds pops a Jetstream 41! Oh dear! There's a vortex issue with the preceeding heavy. You'd be surprised how often this sort of thing happens with no notification to the destination. I can also remember a type issue with Gatwick where a B733 was planned and not spotted for a change to B737. Apparently the extra wingspan caused an issue with Gatwick being on 26R and use of the taxiway.

Spiney

[bookworm]

I'm sympathetic to the grief that the surprise causes, but how about a system where the pilot only announces the type if the dispatcher lied on the FPL?

[PPRuNe Radar]

Much of the surprise factor may disappear when we do away with Repetitive Stored Flight Plans and airlines have to file a fresh plan for every flight

More chance of getting things right 4 hours (or less) from departure, than 6 months in advance

There will still be the odd late change though I expect, due to aircraft tech problems, etc, but much less chance of slipping through the net than today.

[Strepsils]

On the other side of the coin, I find when I contact approach and state "XYZ123, A/C type, descending FLXXX information C" more often than not the controller responds with "C current, QNH 1010" requiring me to then confirm the QNH.

Perhaps the increase amongst crews is trying to preempt the controllers call?

And the spiral continues!

[Roffa]

Bookworm, as mentioned the type on the fpl and thus shown on the fps is not 100% reliable.

As the type is significant to safety, in my case an example might be tucking an A320 2.5nm behind what you thought was another A320 but which turns out to be a B767 and you hadn't bothered to check when the type wasn't given...well it's not career enhancing for either the atco or the upset, in more ways than one, pilot.

So we check.

Even when we now see selected level from suitably equiped a/c via Mode S, if the cleared level is not given on first contact we have to ask for confirmation. You know the old one liner about "assume" I assume