Question for London ATC
Join Date: May 2006
Location: USA
Age: 67
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I'm a little confused as to all the random slamming of the US, since my FAA handbook says to use:
PHRASEOLOGY-
CLIMB/DESCEND AND MAINTAIN (altitude).
Which I do everyday, and have for the last 23 years.
Don't like position and hold? OK, I'll buy it's different from what you use, but does that make it wrong? Let's see, it could be mistaken for "hold position". So the worst thing that happens is an aircraft doesn't move.
Personally I find your conditional line-up clearances quite bizarre, and more dangerous. If you are going to let the pilots decide when to take the runway, why have a controller at all? And you really need to explain the difference between "Cleared to land #2 following a B737 two mile final" and "Land after the B737".
Every system has its quirks. And in a modern ATC system, I pass the heading to the next controller via the data block scratchpad!
PHRASEOLOGY-
CLIMB/DESCEND AND MAINTAIN (altitude).
Which I do everyday, and have for the last 23 years.
Don't like position and hold? OK, I'll buy it's different from what you use, but does that make it wrong? Let's see, it could be mistaken for "hold position". So the worst thing that happens is an aircraft doesn't move.
Personally I find your conditional line-up clearances quite bizarre, and more dangerous. If you are going to let the pilots decide when to take the runway, why have a controller at all? And you really need to explain the difference between "Cleared to land #2 following a B737 two mile final" and "Land after the B737".
Every system has its quirks. And in a modern ATC system, I pass the heading to the next controller via the data block scratchpad!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: France
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold West, we use the same phraseology:" Climb/Descent and maintain", not "maintain" alone as said above. It makes all the difference.
For the difference between "position and hold" and "hold position".
I agree with you,... on your side of the world.
Think of what can append, correction what does append, when a US acft gets a "hold position" clearance (hold short of RWY), and understands "position and hold" (quite the opposite).
As far as I know, the Std phraseology around a RWY is "Hold short of..." or "Line up and wait".
For the "conditional line-up", I use them with a lot of caution (VMC conditions, same holding point, specialised RWY), but it's only my humble self
As for your "land and hold short", I don't even begins to understand how it's possible to use it, without ending up with a Tenerife like "incident"...
For the difference between "position and hold" and "hold position".
I agree with you,... on your side of the world.
Think of what can append, correction what does append, when a US acft gets a "hold position" clearance (hold short of RWY), and understands "position and hold" (quite the opposite).
As far as I know, the Std phraseology around a RWY is "Hold short of..." or "Line up and wait".
For the "conditional line-up", I use them with a lot of caution (VMC conditions, same holding point, specialised RWY), but it's only my humble self
As for your "land and hold short", I don't even begins to understand how it's possible to use it, without ending up with a Tenerife like "incident"...
Thread Starter
Hold West
Quite agree on conditional line-ups-potentially dangerous and I don't the point; it doesn't save time or radio comms.
One bizarre US procedure (apart from language silliness on the radio) is the constant use of visual ground references. Something you do NOT hear around the world, but is a constant at major US airports. It is like pilots and ATCOs are trying to outsmart each other on local knowledge.
While the US certainly has its oddities, travel the world. For example, try to understand a Russian airways clearance, they just give the squawk code-zippo else. Then I found out why-in Soviet times the navigator filed the flight plan, which was countersigned and entered into the system, ta da-the airways clearance. The only remaining item was the squawk code-routing and level was assumed as planned, freqs on charts, so code and take-off clearance.
The idea of a million transition levels seems antiquated-why cannot the ICAO agree on one, hell, why can't the UK CAA agree on one. Once flew from Mildenhall to Yeovilton-RIS, RAS, and controlled airspace in 40 minutes, in and out of CAS by changing level one thousand feet.
Quite agree on conditional line-ups-potentially dangerous and I don't the point; it doesn't save time or radio comms.
One bizarre US procedure (apart from language silliness on the radio) is the constant use of visual ground references. Something you do NOT hear around the world, but is a constant at major US airports. It is like pilots and ATCOs are trying to outsmart each other on local knowledge.
While the US certainly has its oddities, travel the world. For example, try to understand a Russian airways clearance, they just give the squawk code-zippo else. Then I found out why-in Soviet times the navigator filed the flight plan, which was countersigned and entered into the system, ta da-the airways clearance. The only remaining item was the squawk code-routing and level was assumed as planned, freqs on charts, so code and take-off clearance.
The idea of a million transition levels seems antiquated-why cannot the ICAO agree on one, hell, why can't the UK CAA agree on one. Once flew from Mildenhall to Yeovilton-RIS, RAS, and controlled airspace in 40 minutes, in and out of CAS by changing level one thousand feet.
Thread Starter
LAHSO is easy, day VMC, the restricted distance remaining is given and pilots treat it as a shortened runway. Simple. Night, not so much!!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the near misses were generally around simultaneous ops on intersecting runways (as in land/depart full length on 18 and sequence another landing/departure on 15 so he goes after the first one has gone through the intersection and he then rolls through the intersection) not LAHSO
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the Maintain FL***, I wonder if it came about because of errors from the pilots and a controller missing a readback....
IE - BAW356 is level at FL180 - Controller: BAW356 Decend to 5000 feet
Pilot - Roger Descend 5000 ft BAW356 (missing the "to" part of the transmission and controller missing the correct readback). The pilot then leaves FL 180 and stops at 13,000ft, descending only 5000 feet.
Maintain 5000 feet reduces the possibility of listening and readback error.
I think I remember the correct phraseology at some point being Descend and maintain FL*** or climb and maintain FL***, but that drew complaints because the descend or climb part made it far to obvious. IE, if I am at FL180 and given clearance to FL270 I am not going to decend to get there am I? Which makes the UK version of it seem a bit silly too doesn't it? Wich is better? As long as no one bumps they both seem fine to me!
IE - BAW356 is level at FL180 - Controller: BAW356 Decend to 5000 feet
Pilot - Roger Descend 5000 ft BAW356 (missing the "to" part of the transmission and controller missing the correct readback). The pilot then leaves FL 180 and stops at 13,000ft, descending only 5000 feet.
Maintain 5000 feet reduces the possibility of listening and readback error.
I think I remember the correct phraseology at some point being Descend and maintain FL*** or climb and maintain FL***, but that drew complaints because the descend or climb part made it far to obvious. IE, if I am at FL180 and given clearance to FL270 I am not going to decend to get there am I? Which makes the UK version of it seem a bit silly too doesn't it? Wich is better? As long as no one bumps they both seem fine to me!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: southeast england
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold West.
Or the real worst thing is you say "Hold position" which gets mistaken for "position and hold" and you've instantly got a runway incursion at best, a collision at worst!
Don't like position and hold? OK, I'll buy it's different from what you use, but does that make it wrong? Let's see, it could be mistaken for "hold position". So the worst thing that happens is an aircraft doesn't move.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cardiff, UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK, the ATCOs also addon something like the following when instructing an altitude or height.
"BAW123, descend to altitude 5,000ft"
"BAW123, descend to height 2,000ft"
This means the pilot would have to be a really stupid, or very hard of hearing not to notice that what was instructed was not a vertical speed. I don't even believe vertical speed instructions are given like that in the UK, I certainly have never heard anything other than something like, "Descend FL80, expedite descent" or "Climb FL240, best rate through 160". etc - the closest examples I can think of, where it is remotely specifying vertical speed.
"BAW123, descend to altitude 5,000ft"
"BAW123, descend to height 2,000ft"
This means the pilot would have to be a really stupid, or very hard of hearing not to notice that what was instructed was not a vertical speed. I don't even believe vertical speed instructions are given like that in the UK, I certainly have never heard anything other than something like, "Descend FL80, expedite descent" or "Climb FL240, best rate through 160". etc - the closest examples I can think of, where it is remotely specifying vertical speed.
Thread Starter
Respectfully to all the UK ATCOs and, I truly respect the service there, I persist in asking why is it standard procedure to have the pilot "report heading" on a handover? I don't doubt it is easier for the controller, especially under heavy traffic, but CAP 493, just like FAAO 7110.65, requires the controllers to coordinate on a vector prior to the hand-off. (Chap5 page 12) It almost unheard of elsewhere. It seems to me, effectively, the pilot is entering another sector (vertical or horizontal) without assurance of separation due to lack of coordination. And it happens in the busiest airspace at the busiest time, almost by definition. While done in the US, it has been strongly discouraged by management and NATCA safety reps.
GF
Also, read where reading back QNH was a requirement with the ATIS at some airports. So much for that thread.
GF
Also, read where reading back QNH was a requirement with the ATIS at some airports. So much for that thread.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cardiff, UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I'm not a UK ATCO, I'll have a bash at answering your question, from what I've heard from a friend who is in TC. CAP493 is also known as the MATS Pt1 (Manual Air Traffic Services Part 1). Now... every unit has it's own MATS Pt2. MATS Pt2 for the LTCC and for other units, such as the MACC I believe, state that to make handling of aircraft easier without having to telephone other units and co-ordinate like that etc, a heading should be reported off to the other controller. Because this is a MATS Pt2 document, it overrides what CAP493 says, for the particular unit. There are other things which are laid down in the MATS Pt2 which are opposite requirements from CAP493.
Regards,
G_F
Regards,
G_F
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Galaxy flyer,
May i suggest that next time you're over that you set aside time and try and visit TC while its still there to see the operation in action??,
As you rightly say headings, speeds etc do indeed need coordinating with the next sector, however, as gone fishing states it says in our mats pt 2 that we can get the pilot to report this information on first contact and that is the act of coordination, and that if we think you are on a heading but you dont report it we will ask you on first contact. I really dont understand your grievance with this. By you doing this we are able to cut down on the r/t loading, making us feel more comfortable and being able to handle the traffic, and therefore less delay to yourself. By you reporting it on first contact we can move on to the next aircraft and transfer you with no problem. If we have to do as you suggest and make a phone call for this situation you get this:
Planner phones for coordination but as his counterpart is fielding lots of other phone calls from other sectors about the same thing there is a delay in answering. Planner gets stressed coz he is not being answered, meanwhile you approach his sector boundary,but coordination hasnt been affected so what?? he turns you around?? Planner is now getting behind in his work as he waits on the phone, and gets more stressed!!. Eventually the phone is answered and coordination done but now he has to get on the phone again for another one!!! repeat ad nauseum..
or......
'
report heading to london on'.........
WHich do you think is better??? seriously!
Now this is in no way a slur on anybody who uses the handoff system, but until the technology in the uk is bought (remember we are privatised and for profit) tested and in place in the 2 centres ,we dont have the facility to transfer stuff electronically,(and wont have for at least 10 years the way i see it). so for the sake of controllers stress and sanity please, oh please just 'report your heading....'
May i suggest that next time you're over that you set aside time and try and visit TC while its still there to see the operation in action??,
As you rightly say headings, speeds etc do indeed need coordinating with the next sector, however, as gone fishing states it says in our mats pt 2 that we can get the pilot to report this information on first contact and that is the act of coordination, and that if we think you are on a heading but you dont report it we will ask you on first contact. I really dont understand your grievance with this. By you doing this we are able to cut down on the r/t loading, making us feel more comfortable and being able to handle the traffic, and therefore less delay to yourself. By you reporting it on first contact we can move on to the next aircraft and transfer you with no problem. If we have to do as you suggest and make a phone call for this situation you get this:
Planner phones for coordination but as his counterpart is fielding lots of other phone calls from other sectors about the same thing there is a delay in answering. Planner gets stressed coz he is not being answered, meanwhile you approach his sector boundary,but coordination hasnt been affected so what?? he turns you around?? Planner is now getting behind in his work as he waits on the phone, and gets more stressed!!. Eventually the phone is answered and coordination done but now he has to get on the phone again for another one!!! repeat ad nauseum..
or......
'
report heading to london on'.........
WHich do you think is better??? seriously!
Now this is in no way a slur on anybody who uses the handoff system, but until the technology in the uk is bought (remember we are privatised and for profit) tested and in place in the 2 centres ,we dont have the facility to transfer stuff electronically,(and wont have for at least 10 years the way i see it). so for the sake of controllers stress and sanity please, oh please just 'report your heading....'
WHich do you think is better??? seriously!
That's not your fault it's NATS's, and galaxy flyer is not the first person to point out how pathetic it is... So let's move on.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAHSO = Land And Hold Short Operation - I believe it means the controller doesn't need to treat the runways as intersecting or converging with regard to separation - because the pilot WILL? stop before he crosses the intersecting runway. If the pilot has to go around or overshoots, then the assumption that they don't intersect is blown! This compares to interleaving full length operations off of intersecting or converging runways, which goes pear shaped if the controller (or controllers) don't get the co-ordination right (or pilot doesn't hear/follow instructions) - which appears to have been the issue KLAS situation in the earlier link.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bookworm, if you factor in traffic density and complexity NATS actually looks a lot better.
There's an interesting document here with enough facts, figures and statistics to keep anyone occupied for a very long time.
The sort of stats that I find mildly interesting though are ones like DSNA (France) in 2005 handling circa 2.6m IFR flights with just under 9,000 total staff of whom circa 2,500 are controllers and NATS handling circa 2.4m IFR flights with around 4,900 staff of whom around 1,300 are controllers (and at lower ATM/CNS costs) and yet it's NATS that always gets the bashing for being costly and inefficient?
There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics
There's an interesting document here with enough facts, figures and statistics to keep anyone occupied for a very long time.
The sort of stats that I find mildly interesting though are ones like DSNA (France) in 2005 handling circa 2.6m IFR flights with just under 9,000 total staff of whom circa 2,500 are controllers and NATS handling circa 2.4m IFR flights with around 4,900 staff of whom around 1,300 are controllers (and at lower ATM/CNS costs) and yet it's NATS that always gets the bashing for being costly and inefficient?
There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
had the systems in place to coordinate clearances and instructions between people sitting at adjacent consoles using that modern miracle of IT the local area network, like every cheaper ATS provider. But apparently it doesn't,
When all the ACC's are using EFD and the very large capacity WAN which is planned has been built then they'll be able to communicate with each other electronically.
NATS is also working in collaboration with DFS and AENA to build a replacement Flight Data Processing (FDP) system. This will replace its current FDP system NAS, which will face problems of sustainment in a few years time. My personal hope is that other European ANSPs will also buy iTEC and there could then be further electronic integration across Europe instead of reliance on OLDI messages.
NATS has installed a new VCCS system for use by the TC ACC when it moves down to Swanwick in November. This system is being installed in its contingent facility, then in the new Prestwick centre and will replace the VCS system in Swanwick AC.
NATS has nearly completed its radar replacement program and is working on replacing its radar tracking system and STCA which will provide a common system across all 3 ACCs.
NATS will install common controller workstations across all 3 sites and will introduce a common HMI.
Eventually the goal is that you could work at any of the 3 (probably 2 when Swanwick AC and TC combine) ACCs on exactly the same kit which uses exactly the same type of systems in exactly the same way.
BD
Thread Starter
Thanks everyone for their replies, even the rants.
Next, I will admit that US FAA has more than its share of oddities, non-ICAO and downright stupid procedures and limitations, least of all, an out-of-date technology. So anyone calling our kettle black is absolutely right. Don't get me started about seppo R/T-wildly worth condemning.
Lastly, in my job, two years out of USAF, I have flown to more overseas locations than I ever did in the Service. My question was merely trying to make sense out of a procedures rarely used here and nearly everywhere else. At Luton, I listen to pilots reading back QNH, I do so if only to fit in. I refuse to be the ugly Yank, but I also refuse to operate clueless as to local procedure and why it has evolved that way. Not a "just do it" kind of guy.
Thanks GF
Next, I will admit that US FAA has more than its share of oddities, non-ICAO and downright stupid procedures and limitations, least of all, an out-of-date technology. So anyone calling our kettle black is absolutely right. Don't get me started about seppo R/T-wildly worth condemning.
Lastly, in my job, two years out of USAF, I have flown to more overseas locations than I ever did in the Service. My question was merely trying to make sense out of a procedures rarely used here and nearly everywhere else. At Luton, I listen to pilots reading back QNH, I do so if only to fit in. I refuse to be the ugly Yank, but I also refuse to operate clueless as to local procedure and why it has evolved that way. Not a "just do it" kind of guy.
Thanks GF
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London Area
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi GF
"At Luton, I listen to pilots reading back QNH, I do so if only to fit in. I refuse to be the ugly Yank"
Why do you feel that you only read back QNH "because others do it". You must be able to see the common sense of setting correct pressure what with the number of level bust that occur especially in busy airspace as London TMA.
I personally have seen horrendous lb's because of wrong pressure setting and to get a readback of the setting is a means of trying to alleviate these busts.
"At Luton, I listen to pilots reading back QNH, I do so if only to fit in. I refuse to be the ugly Yank"
Why do you feel that you only read back QNH "because others do it". You must be able to see the common sense of setting correct pressure what with the number of level bust that occur especially in busy airspace as London TMA.
I personally have seen horrendous lb's because of wrong pressure setting and to get a readback of the setting is a means of trying to alleviate these busts.