Annoying RT

[Northerner]

Gonzo and others are right, which is why it's really annoying when you get "blah blah blah, passing x thousand feet for x thousand feet on a y departure with ident

Trouble is I'm only allowed to count you identified if I ask for the squawk ident, you acknowledge it, and then I see it on the radar at the aircraft I expect you to be. SO if you ident without asking, I haven't asked, and so I can't count it.

As for the number of planes we work at once - regularly 12 - 15 in the London TMA, occasionally more than that.

The chances of more than one identing are less likely if we ask for it, but it can happen, and remember that whilst squawk ident is most frequently asked for after departure from the major airfields, it can also be used for other traffic where we might not be as sure which is who.....

In the good old days getting you identing also used to set off the tracking system and ensure that your flight plan was activated. Is that still the case anyone?

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Northerner

"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."

[spekesoftly]

Perhaps the most recent "Annoying R/T" trend is pilots from the same airline indulging in personal "chit-chat", oblivious to how distracting it is to others. Not just in quiet periods, but also during a busy radar sequence!

[John R81]

Echoing sentiment above

"After the landing PA28" (Airbus, or anything except Concord)......

I am a heli pilot. All planks look the same. My readback will be "after the landing aircraft..." If there is something ahead of the P28 I would "go" in the wrong place.

Different (for me) if told "after the A109" or R22, or EC145, but how many plank drivers know the difference there?

John

[Gonzo]

To add to Northerner's post, we in the tower look out for the ident as an indication that the aircraft has two-way with London.....absence of ident prompts us to try again to see if the a/c is still on our frequency.

To John R81, in the scenario you describe, what would you expect the ATCO to do if there was an 'aircraft' (A320) just slowing down after landing and vacating, but clearly within your field of view, and another 'aircraft' (PA28) on short final?

If I was that ATCO and you read back 'aircraft' I'd expect the worst and assume that you meant after the one vacating. While my heart rate shoots up I'd be trying to get on the R/T and confirm.

If you don't understand the clearance you've been given, you must say so. If you don't know the difference between an A320 and a PA28 then you must say so, and the ATCO will come back with clarifying remarks. By just reading back 'aircraft' you are already passing through the first slice of cheese.

[DFC]

Gonzo,

Originally Posted by cap413

Conditional clearances are to relate to one movement only and, in

the case of landing traffic, this must be the first aircraft on approach.

Rolling out is not on approach.

While ATCOs (aerodrome at least) are provided with training in and assessed on aircraft recognition pilots are not and there is no requirement for a pilot to know what an A320 looks like.

You say "After the landing A320 line up and wait"

I say "After the landing A320 line up and wait"

and then wait and see what an A320 looks like.

Same airport, same traffic makes it easy.

Of course we do get "after the landing falcon line up and wait"

Is that the 20, 50, 900 900lx, 2000 2000lx or 7x..........quite different aircraft and as you say it is so important to get it right

Your "after the landing falcon" = a pilots "after the landing aircraft"

because if you tell me to line up after the landing falcon I could sit there waiting for one of these;

http://www.aerofalcon.com/images/3_F...at_Hovings.jpg

[Gonzo]

DFC,

It's all very well quoting from MATS Part 1, but we both know the world is not so black and white.

I've seen many crew assume the conditional aircraft was the one that had already passed them on the runway, not the one still on final. I've also seen ATCOs make mistakes and misjudgements.

So what would you do if you were waiting to cross at the midpoint; one aircraft had just touched down but was yet to pass you, there was another 2.5nm out on approach, and I'd just given you an 'after the landing, cross......' clearance. Would you know I meant after the at 2.5nm, beacuse that's what MATS Part 1 says? Would I be safe to assume all pilots are as familiar with that document?

Not sure why you think this is all rather amusing, some of us take this sort of thing quite seriously.

[Denti]

Why, when ATC give a conditional "After the landing Easyjet Airbus A319...." do folk readback "after the landing aircraft...."

Simple, last time i waited for the correct aircraft i got reprimanded by ATC. After all they told me to line up behind that landing Lufthansa A320 so i told them we would do so and waited for a Lufty A320. Next landing was of course a BMI A320 so we didn't line up.

By the way, the identing after departure seems to be a british peculiarity, is there really any technical reason anymore for that? Or just a local procedural oddity? After all in other parts of europe we do not even get individual squawks anymore, just 1000 for all on those routes, not to mention no ident and ATC has no problem working with us anyway.

[John R81]

Gonzo

I meant "Aircraft" in place of the type. Full readback would be, for example

"After the landing aircraft, line up 26 right"

I don't say back the aircraft type as this would give a false impression to you that I know what one of them is. I don't.

So no problem in your scenario. Only issue comes if you have given me the 2nd or 3rd landing aircraft but don't give me that vital (to me) piece of information. A320 v P38 I might just get that one, but 3x BA flights, same livery and similar size please help me by referencing only the 1st aircraft or make it clear.... eg "After the BA 747 number 3 on final, line up 26R".

I understand what you are trying to do. I posted as working all day with plank drivers (as many ATC do) who may know all the different fix-wing models I wanted to point out only that Rotorheads might be just as anal regarding Heli's but have a complete blank for make / model of fixed wing.

I will take on board one thing from your response; I could be a little clearer without wasting time. In future I will add "next" so above readback becomes "After the next landing aircraft, line up 26 right".

If unclear, then shout - absolutely. It does, as you say, work both ways.

Thanks for making me think a little

John

[055166k]

Denti

The "ident" can be for a number of different reasons.....besides the confirmation of aircraft identity and ensuring that the correct SSR code correlates to the correct flight. On my sectors the "ident" will trigger the code-callsign conversion [if not automatically done] and starts to track the aircraft.....depending on the particular bit of airspace it can change the "label" from a background grey colour to a foreground green colour.
Occassionally an aircraft might display a wrong code [misheard or selection error or redundant pairing or similar] and this may cause a wrong label to be displayed and/or activate the flight plan for the wrong flight.

[Pera]

Johnr81

Just reply unable if you are unfamiliar with the type. The ATC might miss your cryptic readback.

P.

[PaulW]

I apologise for adding fuel to the fire, but its quite common at Aberdeen to be given the clearance "after the landing Jetstream line up and wait", and a Saab 2000 or Embraer flies over the threshold. "Eastflight" doesnt always mean a Jetstream.

My pet hates on the RT are "Ident you have" and the words "thats copied and understood"
Just repeat back "ident callsign" and say "roger"

From a turboprop pilots point of view asking a jet to "maintain highspeed" and asking the the turboprop to "reduce speed 180 or less" with forty track miles to go for sequencing when the jet will be wanting to slow down anyway and the turboprop would quite happily of maintained 250kts to final and the jet would not have known it was there. Just because its a jet doesnt mean its faster in the zone or that its lower so itll get there first.

[DFC]

So what would you do if you were waiting to cross at the midpoint; one aircraft had just touched down but was yet to pass you, there was another 2.5nm out on approach, and I'd just given you an 'after the landing, cross......' clearance. Would you know I meant after the at 2.5nm, beacuse that's what MATS Part 1 says? Would I be safe to assume all pilots are as familiar with that document?

I would look out my window and see that you had provided an unsafe clearance.

You could have no traffic on the runway and say "after the landing A320 cross 27L" and as said A320 vacates at the exit prior to me wonder what you were talking about.

Perhaps you need to have a think about conditional clearances issued to traffic waiting to cross at the midpoint etc.

PaulW, so true!! but isn't that why we make our initial call to approach with type, atis code and qnh?

[Chesty Morgan]

PaulW, roger does not mean understood!

[Data Dad]

PaulW wrote:

its quite common at Aberdeen to be given the clearance "after the landing Jetstream line up and wait", and a Saab 2000 or Embraer flies over the threshold.

I hope its not common at all! Aberdeen Unit policy is not to use Conditional Clearances for runway movements. When they are used the aircraft type is taken from what the (electronic) 'strip' says and that is directly from the flight plan ..... garbage in, garbage out.

Just because its a jet doesnt mean its faster in the zone or that its lower so itll get there first.

Hear, hear. Most airport controllers are well aware of that BUT are usually at mercy of the preceding en-route sectors who are not so aware and have made the decision to 'get the jet ahead'.


John R81,

Only issue comes if you have given me the 2nd or 3rd landing aircraft

Read the CAP413 extract posted by DFC above - conditionals are only allowed to refer to the FIRST aircraft.

DD

[Mister Geezer]

In the days of when PD did use conditionals (few years ago now), some types were often generalised and a member of the A320 family would often be referred to as 'an Airbus' and a E145 or a E190 was often simply referred to as 'an Embraer'. Whilst that in itself would have little safety impact, it is perhaps somewhat different to the conditional phraseology used at larger NATS units. Funnily enough, I never heard a member of the Boeing family being referred to as simply being 'a Boeing'.

CAA ATS seem reluctant to stipulate the use of the aircraft operator in addition to the aircraft type since it can get rather complicated with wet lease ops. However at larger airfields it is often second nature for the aircraft operator to be mentioned in a conditional clearance.

With a number of ATC units now not using conditional clearances, is there anything that could have done by the regulator to make the use of such clearances less potentially unambiguous? After all, if there was no risk of ambiguity, then I suspect that no units would have opted to not use conditionals? Could there be a safety case for the regulator to do away with conditionals all together, based on where we are at present? Perhaps the CAA ATS boys and girls have not done enough in making conditionals more robust?

I would be interested to hear what you controllers think.

[PaulW]

Regarding the incorrect aircraft types passing over the threshold with conditional clearances, that was in no way a dig at the controllers, I am aware that the flight plans and aircraft type often get changed by the company and type may sometimes be incorrect through error in operations, Im just pointing out that the aircraft type is not always correct, for whatever reason. Repeatedly questioning did you mean this aircraft type will add to the controller work load. In the same way I couldnt tell the difference between a puma and a tiger or super puma? Do they look any different from the outside or is just different engines, avionics and gearbox? Its a bond, chc, or bristows helicopter to me.

Roger means message received edit apologies to ChestyMorgan Ive just read CAP 413 and indeed it does not say understood, but there is no confirmation for understood except reading it back. Apparently unless its important enough to readback a message only needs to be received.

So Ill go back and say I dont like the word copied..
CAP 413

Acknowledgements of information should be signified by the use of the receiving
stations’ callsign or Roger callsign, and not by messages such as: 'callsign-copy the
weather' or 'callsign-copy the traffic'.

[Chesty Morgan]

Nope it just means received. Although most people use it to mean understood...incorrectly.

Eurocontrol thingy

[PaulW]

Thanks ChestyMorgan nice link to a useful page.
I just search through CAP413 but your link is good.

[DFC]

What happens when the number 1 is a B737 and so is the number 2,3,4 and 5.

"After the Landing B737 line up and wait"

I think that in the ICAO docs Roger means "received and understood".

To me that simply means that;

1. The message has been received in full

2. The message makes sense

The actions or not subsequent to receiving the message may not be the responsibility of the person receiving the message and it may take some time for the person receiving the message to inform the responsible person of the message. I am not just talking about radio operator passing message to pilot it could be PNF receiving the message and interupting the PIC's dinner to pass on the message.

[spekesoftly]

What happens when the number 1 is a B737 and so is the number 2,3,4 and 5.

CAP 493 states that:- "no ambiguity must exist as to the identity of the aircraft concerned"

So a conditional line-up clearance in the above example may not comply. Suggest it depends on the spacing between the successive B737s ?