A lot of unnecessary UK Ground RT
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of unnecessary UK Ground RT
Look at the amount of RT required on the ground and many regional UK airports, required seemingly for 'ar*e-covering' reasons. With the current concern about rwy incursions, surely the emphasis should be on 'less is more' - the tendency for the important bits of info to get lost in the meleé is increasing.
I mean no criticism of the ATCOs thumbing the mic; the whole developing trend is widespread across the UK and smacks to me of someone somewhat removed from operational activities jerking their knee rather vigorously.
Example, compare EDI to AMS.
EDI: "EZY 123 After inbound 146 Taxi Hold D1 Runway 24 via E1 cross undershoot runway 12 QNH 1019"
AMS: (from 'H' cul-de-sac, on the opposite side of the airfield): "Taxi Runway 24"
Standard taxi routings and removal of all unnecessary bits of RT (checking the QNH again? Make sure you hold short of everything! Watch those wingtips! Cleared to cross that closed runway!" do wonders for clarity of RT.
I promise you I have had colleagues in that very situation forget to readback the most important 'hold short' condition of the clearance in all the mess, and amongst the (unnecessarily) saturated RT it has gone unnoticed by ATC.
What's more important, actually ensuring good communication and preventing runway incursions, or making sure that when there is one it isn't the manager's fault - because he thought of insisting on inserting seven different ar*e-covering instructions in the taxi clearance?
A rhetorical question to end on, but thoughts (and/or more enlightened background) please...
I mean no criticism of the ATCOs thumbing the mic; the whole developing trend is widespread across the UK and smacks to me of someone somewhat removed from operational activities jerking their knee rather vigorously.
Example, compare EDI to AMS.
EDI: "EZY 123 After inbound 146 Taxi Hold D1 Runway 24 via E1 cross undershoot runway 12 QNH 1019"
AMS: (from 'H' cul-de-sac, on the opposite side of the airfield): "Taxi Runway 24"
Standard taxi routings and removal of all unnecessary bits of RT (checking the QNH again? Make sure you hold short of everything! Watch those wingtips! Cleared to cross that closed runway!" do wonders for clarity of RT.
I promise you I have had colleagues in that very situation forget to readback the most important 'hold short' condition of the clearance in all the mess, and amongst the (unnecessarily) saturated RT it has gone unnoticed by ATC.
What's more important, actually ensuring good communication and preventing runway incursions, or making sure that when there is one it isn't the manager's fault - because he thought of insisting on inserting seven different ar*e-covering instructions in the taxi clearance?
A rhetorical question to end on, but thoughts (and/or more enlightened background) please...
I tend to agree about the increasing number of instructions that are being handed out. Not just a British problem though, try taking a ground clearance at BRU, the worst distance travelled to instruction ratio of anywhere I use. AMS does show the way forward in so many areas, lots of auto change frequencies which keep the loading down and a well signposted easy to use layout with inbound and outbound routings marked on the charts so the instruction is normaly very simple as the above poster mentions. Auto change to ground after landing and to departure passing 2000ft work very well.
PPRuNe's favourite BABE!!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: under the duvet!!!!
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gary Lager,
I completely agree with you. The amount of times pilots cant remember all the rubbish they have just been told, just means that they then forget to read back the important things like QNH or holding points. I know I am fed up repeating myself, it not only increases my workload but that of the pilot. Hopefully someone with some sense will eventually sort something out!!! Until then.......
I completely agree with you. The amount of times pilots cant remember all the rubbish they have just been told, just means that they then forget to read back the important things like QNH or holding points. I know I am fed up repeating myself, it not only increases my workload but that of the pilot. Hopefully someone with some sense will eventually sort something out!!! Until then.......
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points here. But to go further, I wonder why QNH has to be mentioned separately on contacting clearance delivery; we have just mentioned which ATIS we have, and the QNH is part of it... Another example of someone covering their ***e?
Cheers
Cheers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you have a regulatory reference for where it says we have to mention QNH to delivery/ground, even after ATIS letter has been passed?
If ATC mention it first, we need to read it back as required by CAP413/MATS Pt 1, but I didn't think pilots needed to bring it up. I wouldn't as a rule, for the reasons given in my first post.
Obviously if my altimeter indicated 200' difference from airfield elev we'd query it, but that should be catered for by airmanship, not overzealous RT requirements!
If ATC mention it first, we need to read it back as required by CAP413/MATS Pt 1, but I didn't think pilots needed to bring it up. I wouldn't as a rule, for the reasons given in my first post.
Obviously if my altimeter indicated 200' difference from airfield elev we'd query it, but that should be catered for by airmanship, not overzealous RT requirements!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Gonzo.
I take it there's no requirement for GND to pass and expect readback of QNH again on issue of taxi clearance, then?
Had a quick look at AIPs for EDI, CWL, EMA - no such requirement there but it still ends up in the RT a lot.
Fond memories of LHR taxiing simplicity when I was based there - I left before the taxiways were redesignated - especially at night. "Follow the greens": That's more like it!
I take it there's no requirement for GND to pass and expect readback of QNH again on issue of taxi clearance, then?
Had a quick look at AIPs for EDI, CWL, EMA - no such requirement there but it still ends up in the RT a lot.
Fond memories of LHR taxiing simplicity when I was based there - I left before the taxiways were redesignated - especially at night. "Follow the greens": That's more like it!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gatwick's entry is the same, stand, a/c type, atis letter and qnh - it's still a mandatory readback even though you got it from the atis rather than direct from the controller. you only don't have to read back the runway since it's on the plate for sid you're given, and by reading back the sid correct you've essentially done that. personally i'll only ever check qnh again if it's changed, and on a gmc freq all you'll get is a broadcast - unless it's really quiet.
lassie - you've slightly missed the point. yes, if a pilot has a choice of holds reiterating it will help avoid an incorrect entry point but the main reason for stating the entry points again is to discourage a pilot at a different holding point from believing the line up clearance was for him. like a second check after the callsign, which we all know confusion happens with.
however i agree that conditional line up clearances are becoming something of a ramble. and why on earth are airports with one only one entry point (eg eglc) being mandated with the same instruction?! another example of 'if it fits one airport it must work at all the others'.
lassie - you've slightly missed the point. yes, if a pilot has a choice of holds reiterating it will help avoid an incorrect entry point but the main reason for stating the entry points again is to discourage a pilot at a different holding point from believing the line up clearance was for him. like a second check after the callsign, which we all know confusion happens with.
however i agree that conditional line up clearances are becoming something of a ramble. and why on earth are airports with one only one entry point (eg eglc) being mandated with the same instruction?! another example of 'if it fits one airport it must work at all the others'.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regrettably, symptomatic of so many aspects of life in Bliar's Britain. Someone at SRG should be tasked with reducing RT verbiage, not increasing it! OT but still RT - 6 digit frequencies. When they arrive I'll use them, until then save breath. I'm delighted to report that I've perceived an increasing number of LATCC controllers (north of the TMA, at least) giving up on the new cause, thank ghod.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a trial going on at the moment which involves the aircrew reporting the STAR they are flying on 1st contact with London. It is only certain airlines on specific STARs but it does seem to reduce the controller RT and take up has been around 70% in the first month.
So come on all you BA and BD crews on the LAM3A STAR let's make it 100% as soon as possible and get the trial extended to all airlines on all routes.
So come on all you BA and BD crews on the LAM3A STAR let's make it 100% as soon as possible and get the trial extended to all airlines on all routes.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: england
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hangten
I quite agree this whole situation where rules are imposed en mass without clear thought and Logic being applied is causing no end of hassel.
Never had so many A/C return to me and ask for the frequency again inspite of "contact bla bla on 133. -ZERO - SEVEN - FIVE " they always come back with "NO CONTACT 133.75 "
If an airfield has several different routes to get from A to B then yes ,by all means say procede to via etc ,but if there is only one route, why have the via bit.
Same with RWY entry points ,if multiple entry points are available then specify BUT, if you've only got one then, why bother.
I really think it's time for units to stand up to SRG and say " SRG NO " we will do it this way because.......... and whats more our safetycase/ hazard analysis as per the SMS document allows us to do it so, ya boo sucks to you .
Of course one has to be pretty sure of your case before that course of action is tried BUT more and more units are relying on the procedures in their MATS pt two's which are not necessarily compliant with MATS pt 1
Our unit has tried it once and it worked so we will no doubt be doing it again .
Anything to just cut out the Cr@p on an already busy R/T
'if it fits one airport it must work at all the others'.
Never had so many A/C return to me and ask for the frequency again inspite of "contact bla bla on 133. -ZERO - SEVEN - FIVE " they always come back with "NO CONTACT 133.75 "
If an airfield has several different routes to get from A to B then yes ,by all means say procede to via etc ,but if there is only one route, why have the via bit.
Same with RWY entry points ,if multiple entry points are available then specify BUT, if you've only got one then, why bother.
I really think it's time for units to stand up to SRG and say " SRG NO " we will do it this way because.......... and whats more our safetycase/ hazard analysis as per the SMS document allows us to do it so, ya boo sucks to you .
Of course one has to be pretty sure of your case before that course of action is tried BUT more and more units are relying on the procedures in their MATS pt two's which are not necessarily compliant with MATS pt 1
Our unit has tried it once and it worked so we will no doubt be doing it again .
Anything to just cut out the Cr@p on an already busy R/T
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same at Manch.....but so many give...xxy123 for ATC to zzzz. And then it's a laconic Roger on "readback".....
bb
bb
Last edited by wiccan; 4th Dec 2006 at 21:05. Reason: syntax
Max Reheat: I sit on the Phraseology Working Group at CAA. Believe me, these changes aren't intitiated by SRG, but by ICAO, Eurocontrol and in some cases NATS, the latest NATS one being the requirement to include holding point designator with all line up clearances instead of just with intermediate departures. NATS also wanted 'degrees' after ALL heading instructions (even where then new heading ends in '5') and 'millibars' after ALL pressure settings, not just those below 1000mb.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then why don't 'we' tell NATS to go whistle, when and if neccessary. Instead of the 'has beens', whose career paths have taken them to staff jobs and divorced them from reality (in many cases for too many years), dreaming up these daft ideas from behind desks in Kingsway, why don't they get out to the units and flightdecks and find out what REALLY is or isn't required. There is a great danger with this ever-burgeoning phraseology loading that the 'core' instruction is getting lost in the mire.
There is no need whatsoever for 'degrees'; prefixing the instruction with 'heading' is all that is required and as for millibars - what the hell else am I setting on the b...y altimeter. How can the numbers '1002' or '987' be misunderstood or confused with anything else but a pressure setting when combined with an instruction to climb or descend?
And we pay these people?
There is no need whatsoever for 'degrees'; prefixing the instruction with 'heading' is all that is required and as for millibars - what the hell else am I setting on the b...y altimeter. How can the numbers '1002' or '987' be misunderstood or confused with anything else but a pressure setting when combined with an instruction to climb or descend?
And we pay these people?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That said - I quite agree with your sentiments re. the rest of your comments.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: EGPH
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that as an EDI ATCO, I agree with the thought that the protracted taxi clearance possibly leads to confusion. In fact, it is possible it is supposed to be even longer-
Taxi to holding point D1 via E1, runway 24, QNH 1013, cross runway 12 at A15- but most of us omit the point of crossing, as there is only one option to cross on that route!
As we don't have a delivery frequency, the comments re LHR & LGW don't really apply, but I do try to write the QNH on a strip if the pilot (correctly) mentions it on his push & start request, and then omit it from his taxi clearance later.
What's interesting is that I have omitted the cross 12 bit on more than one occasion, only to have the pilot "read it back", or cross the runway anyway. Of all our operators, it seems DLH, KLM and GWI are the only ones who routinely stop at the "Runway Ahead" board and ask to cross if not already cleared.
And now, of course, we have to add the "Via D1" bit to any line up or trake off clearances....
Taxi to holding point D1 via E1, runway 24, QNH 1013, cross runway 12 at A15- but most of us omit the point of crossing, as there is only one option to cross on that route!
As we don't have a delivery frequency, the comments re LHR & LGW don't really apply, but I do try to write the QNH on a strip if the pilot (correctly) mentions it on his push & start request, and then omit it from his taxi clearance later.
What's interesting is that I have omitted the cross 12 bit on more than one occasion, only to have the pilot "read it back", or cross the runway anyway. Of all our operators, it seems DLH, KLM and GWI are the only ones who routinely stop at the "Runway Ahead" board and ask to cross if not already cleared.
And now, of course, we have to add the "Via D1" bit to any line up or trake off clearances....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Near London, alledgedly..
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least by me saying the QNH again it will hopefully trigger a 2nd look at what is set.
Last edited by GuruCube; 7th Dec 2006 at 23:21.
