Level Bust Prevention
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In t'sky
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Level Bust Prevention
Folks,
My company is introducing a procedure to assist in level bust prevention. The long and short of it is - if the PM is busy on another frequency, the PF is not allowed to execute any change of altitude or heading until it has been reconfirmed with ATC.
My thoughts on this are two-fold. In some airports we are used to getting early/late descents, and although our SOP's say no Box 2 usage in descent, with early let-downs it's unavoidable and can leave us high on the profile, meaning we have to start slowing down etc..
Also, surely this is going to jam up even more congested frequencies?
Just wondered what your thoughts might be.
Horgy
My company is introducing a procedure to assist in level bust prevention. The long and short of it is - if the PM is busy on another frequency, the PF is not allowed to execute any change of altitude or heading until it has been reconfirmed with ATC.
My thoughts on this are two-fold. In some airports we are used to getting early/late descents, and although our SOP's say no Box 2 usage in descent, with early let-downs it's unavoidable and can leave us high on the profile, meaning we have to start slowing down etc..
Also, surely this is going to jam up even more congested frequencies?
Just wondered what your thoughts might be.
Horgy
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How long will it be (on average) before the non flying pilot is in a position to reconfirm the clearance ??
Quite often we will need you to do things without delay and can't afford to hang about whilst wheelchairs and baggage requests are sorted out with company
Quite often we will need you to do things without delay and can't afford to hang about whilst wheelchairs and baggage requests are sorted out with company
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MrHorgy
I'm all for flight safety, but I think this is a bit OTT. It will cause frustration on the R/T for one.
I really do not understand from your post what this SOP would achieve. Your post reads as if the PF can change level or heading when the PM is not listening in, as long as the PF has reconfirmed with ATC the instruction. Is that correct? That's how your post reads.
A few points spring to mind immediately.
First, the PF has to readback the instruction to ATC, therefore any mistake would be caught (in the vast majority of cases) at this point.
Secondly, I would have thought that the point where a mistake is made is not in the actual understanding/hearing correctly what has been instructed i.e. 'Climb FL130', but when you actually dial that into the aircraft.
Carrying out the action incorrectly will not necessarily be avoided by reconfiriming the instruction with ATC before you do it!!
Thirdly, even though a good safety culture is to be applauded, I would be a bit peeved as a highly trained pilot that my company did not trust me to do something as simple as change heading or level if If the PM was not monitoring my actions!!
I'm all for flight safety, but I think this is a bit OTT. It will cause frustration on the R/T for one.
I really do not understand from your post what this SOP would achieve. Your post reads as if the PF can change level or heading when the PM is not listening in, as long as the PF has reconfirmed with ATC the instruction. Is that correct? That's how your post reads.
A few points spring to mind immediately.
First, the PF has to readback the instruction to ATC, therefore any mistake would be caught (in the vast majority of cases) at this point.
Secondly, I would have thought that the point where a mistake is made is not in the actual understanding/hearing correctly what has been instructed i.e. 'Climb FL130', but when you actually dial that into the aircraft.
Carrying out the action incorrectly will not necessarily be avoided by reconfiriming the instruction with ATC before you do it!!
Thirdly, even though a good safety culture is to be applauded, I would be a bit peeved as a highly trained pilot that my company did not trust me to do something as simple as change heading or level if If the PM was not monitoring my actions!!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: cheshire
Age: 69
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't really like the sound of this one - in busy scenarios, you don't want delays in a/c executing instructions and the reconfirmation IS going to clog up the r/t.
By all means check if you're not sure about the instruction, but as the last post stated, an individual crew member should be trusted to carry out an executive instruction without screwing up!
MACC and LTCC both have Mode S, so incorrectly set levels on the flight deck of Mode S enabled a/c can be detected.
By all means check if you're not sure about the instruction, but as the last post stated, an individual crew member should be trusted to carry out an executive instruction without screwing up!
MACC and LTCC both have Mode S, so incorrectly set levels on the flight deck of Mode S enabled a/c can be detected.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Horgy,
Don't suppose you fly for a Dutch airline?
As an aside, I have knowledge of two fairly recent Level Busts where the crew read back correctly but didn't set the correct level in the MCP. In one of those cases the other flightdeck crew member was talking to company on Box2.
Don't suppose you fly for a Dutch airline?
As an aside, I have knowledge of two fairly recent Level Busts where the crew read back correctly but didn't set the correct level in the MCP. In one of those cases the other flightdeck crew member was talking to company on Box2.
I can understand the intent of this SOP but the implementation can be challenging unless, of course, all non essential calls on box 2 (to company etc) are banned during climb and descent but sometimes the only time we can get the ATIS is during the descent and also we need to check whether the ATIS has changed.
Also I can understand the confirmation of the cleared level maybe but (especially in the context of level busts) but I think the flying pilot should be able to set the heading correctly after readback!
Of course experience of the route helps - there are certain times when I will not go off ATC as I know that a clearance is probably imminent.
Also I can understand the confirmation of the cleared level maybe but (especially in the context of level busts) but I think the flying pilot should be able to set the heading correctly after readback!
Of course experience of the route helps - there are certain times when I will not go off ATC as I know that a clearance is probably imminent.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In t'sky
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
Sorry, to clarify:
If the PM is off frequency, either due to handling/ATIS/company/engineering etc, and a level change, or heading instruction is given, we are allowed to make the change on the MCP, but not execute it. When the PM returns he is to verify the change on Box 1, only then it can be executed.
I'm with you anotherthing I feel rather offended that we can't be trusted to hear and readback an instruction properly and need someone to check it for us! This procedure is very trying, and so far I don't think many pilots are picking up on it and actively implementing it - it's one of these Line Check SOP's.
We're not supposed to leave the freqency unless it's for operational or safety reasons. But we get notes telling us not to contact the handlers outside 25miles because of frequency crossover we're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
I'm not dutch either
Horgy
Sorry, to clarify:
If the PM is off frequency, either due to handling/ATIS/company/engineering etc, and a level change, or heading instruction is given, we are allowed to make the change on the MCP, but not execute it. When the PM returns he is to verify the change on Box 1, only then it can be executed.
I'm with you anotherthing I feel rather offended that we can't be trusted to hear and readback an instruction properly and need someone to check it for us! This procedure is very trying, and so far I don't think many pilots are picking up on it and actively implementing it - it's one of these Line Check SOP's.
We're not supposed to leave the freqency unless it's for operational or safety reasons. But we get notes telling us not to contact the handlers outside 25miles because of frequency crossover we're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
I'm not dutch either
Horgy
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought you may have been Dutch because I know a particular company was perhaps going to change their SOPS 
The sensible thing would surely be to implement/execute the change on the MCP then have the PM (when back on freq) confirm with ATC what the cleared level was?
Stats tell me that by far and away the biggest cause of Level Busts (in this part of the world anyway) is correct readback followed by incorrect action- i.e. Between the readback and verification of the MCP something changes.
The use of 'expect' (when used) has a part to play, and this is being addressed.
Pilot expectations also play a part (eg. check in on freq maintaining SID altitude, asked to squawk ident, then another flight is given climb, but the first flight answers
).
The sensible thing would surely be to implement/execute the change on the MCP then have the PM (when back on freq) confirm with ATC what the cleared level was?
Stats tell me that by far and away the biggest cause of Level Busts (in this part of the world anyway) is correct readback followed by incorrect action- i.e. Between the readback and verification of the MCP something changes.
The use of 'expect' (when used) has a part to play, and this is being addressed.
Pilot expectations also play a part (eg. check in on freq maintaining SID altitude, asked to squawk ident, then another flight is given climb, but the first flight answers
).
