Keep clear of controlled airspace!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you offer any specific evidence for that assertion?
JD
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I just don't accept that.
Can you offer any specific evidence for that assertion?
You mean like tape transcripts? I've seen a fair few aircraft request zone transits and infringement said zone because they thought that being told to contact (or even freecall) a unit implied clearance to transit the zone.
have to take my word for that though
Can you offer any specific evidence for that assertion?
You mean like tape transcripts? I've seen a fair few aircraft request zone transits and infringement said zone because they thought that being told to contact (or even freecall) a unit implied clearance to transit the zone.
have to take my word for that though
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has been discussed at many levels for many years.
Once upon a time a pilot on a flight called up an ATC unit and reported his route as a to B (position south of a CTR) to C (position north of the CTR).
Controller acknowledged routing and asked pilot to report at C.
Pilot routed as notified to ATC.
As the pilot passed through the final approach to the international airport within the zone, the "startled" controller asked the pilot to confirm their position. The pilot confirmed that they were passing through the finall approach in transit from B to C.
Severe argument arrose (not on the R/T) about if the pilot was or was not cleared to transit the airspace. The argument revolving about the point that if for example I say that I am routing from Ockham to Bovingdon at 1500ft then even non rated Heathrow controllers should be able to deduce that such a routing is across (through) the London CTR.
One side's argument was basically if I tell you I am doing abc and you don't object then you agree to said routing.
Combine that gem with the fact that aircraft call up various units on various routings that in many cases the controller can not be sure will keep them outside controlled airspace and we end up with the "remain outside controlled airspace"
Pilots are told "remain outside controlled airspace" for no other reason than they can never have an excuse for entering such airspace without clearance / good reason.
Regards,
DFC
Once upon a time a pilot on a flight called up an ATC unit and reported his route as a to B (position south of a CTR) to C (position north of the CTR).
Controller acknowledged routing and asked pilot to report at C.
Pilot routed as notified to ATC.
As the pilot passed through the final approach to the international airport within the zone, the "startled" controller asked the pilot to confirm their position. The pilot confirmed that they were passing through the finall approach in transit from B to C.
Severe argument arrose (not on the R/T) about if the pilot was or was not cleared to transit the airspace. The argument revolving about the point that if for example I say that I am routing from Ockham to Bovingdon at 1500ft then even non rated Heathrow controllers should be able to deduce that such a routing is across (through) the London CTR.
One side's argument was basically if I tell you I am doing abc and you don't object then you agree to said routing.
Combine that gem with the fact that aircraft call up various units on various routings that in many cases the controller can not be sure will keep them outside controlled airspace and we end up with the "remain outside controlled airspace"
Pilots are told "remain outside controlled airspace" for no other reason than they can never have an excuse for entering such airspace without clearance / good reason.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 29 Acacia Road
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I just don't accept that.
Can you offer any specific evidence for that assertion?
Can you offer any specific evidence for that assertion?
Probably not quite what you were looking for, but some evidence nonetheless!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My main point was that I don't accept that being given a frequency change is regularly taken as a clearance to enter CAS and I asked you for specific evidence for that suggestion. Secondly, even if that actually were to happen, do you really think such a pilot would have sufficient airmanship to subsequently "avoid" CAS - always supposing that he even knew where it (or he) was, of course ... ?
In my opinion, you need to offer some specific evidence for your assertions, otherwise they must be assumed to be apocryphal (like coolbeans' and landedoutagain's posts, above).
In any event, uttering "ROCAS" to all pilots implies that they are all viewed by ATCOs to be in the category of a "numpty". I would suggest this is hardly likely to set the right tone for the subsequent relationship between ATCO and pilot - I could even argue that it is just poor interpersonal skills.
JD
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 29 Acacia Road
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jumbo driver - I am pretty sure that if you can find the document to which i am referring, the evidence is contained within it!
Maybe some controllers are erring on the side of caution a bit too often, but surely that is preferable dont you think?
For what its worth, I find it almost insulting (to both of us!) that I am now required to say "taking your own terrain clearance, xxx will accept you in the descent to altitude xxx" when a) the receiving unit isnt going to offer me an unsafe level anyway, and b) every pilot should know that outside CAS they are responsible for terrain clearance. If they dont, they shouldnt be flying.
A tale, apocryphal or not... Some years ago, an elderly woman replaced her fan oven with a new fangled microwave one. She killed her dog in it the next day, trying to dry it off, and then successfully sued the microwave manufacturer because the instructions didnt say not to put animals in it - something she had done regularly with the previous oven!
Maybe some controllers are erring on the side of caution a bit too often, but surely that is preferable dont you think?
For what its worth, I find it almost insulting (to both of us!) that I am now required to say "taking your own terrain clearance, xxx will accept you in the descent to altitude xxx" when a) the receiving unit isnt going to offer me an unsafe level anyway, and b) every pilot should know that outside CAS they are responsible for terrain clearance. If they dont, they shouldnt be flying.
A tale, apocryphal or not... Some years ago, an elderly woman replaced her fan oven with a new fangled microwave one. She killed her dog in it the next day, trying to dry it off, and then successfully sued the microwave manufacturer because the instructions didnt say not to put animals in it - something she had done regularly with the previous oven!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1 Introduction
1.1 Feedback from aircraft operators and Air Traffic Standards Department (ATSD) Regional Inspectors suggests that departure clearances are still being issued by controllers at some units which include a second level instruction in the form “climb when instructed by radar Flight Level (xxx)” or “request level change en route Flight Level (xxx)”.
1.2 These phrases are known to be potentially confusing, have been a contributory factor in level busts and have, therefore, been withdrawn from CAP 413 and MATS Part 1 (Attachment to Appendix E). The specific meanings that these phrases had in the context of radio failure procedures no longer apply and they no longer form part of approved phraseology.
1.1 Feedback from aircraft operators and Air Traffic Standards Department (ATSD) Regional Inspectors suggests that departure clearances are still being issued by controllers at some units which include a second level instruction in the form “climb when instructed by radar Flight Level (xxx)” or “request level change en route Flight Level (xxx)”.
1.2 These phrases are known to be potentially confusing, have been a contributory factor in level busts and have, therefore, been withdrawn from CAP 413 and MATS Part 1 (Attachment to Appendix E). The specific meanings that these phrases had in the context of radio failure procedures no longer apply and they no longer form part of approved phraseology.
... although it is not quite as specific as you suggested.
So, where is the equivalent supporting "evidence" for the phrase "remain outside controlled airspace" ?
JD
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I suppose I am that "numpty" (potentially) - I fly in PA28s mainly on weekends about 30~40hrs / yr...
I don't believe I have ever infringed CAS.
DFC post makes sense - it's easy for me to understand why even on first contact I might be told to ROCAS.
I have no problem that someone might say such a thing to me. Why should it be a problem?
And as for prissy-pants who instructs regularly from near a Class D and is put-out by being told "ROCAS" on every flight - get over yourself mate: if that's the worst thing that happens in your day, then life probably isn't too bad...
Andy
I don't believe I have ever infringed CAS.
DFC post makes sense - it's easy for me to understand why even on first contact I might be told to ROCAS.
I have no problem that someone might say such a thing to me. Why should it be a problem?
And as for prissy-pants who instructs regularly from near a Class D and is put-out by being told "ROCAS" on every flight - get over yourself mate: if that's the worst thing that happens in your day, then life probably isn't too bad...
Andy
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oooh thanks, I've never been called a prissy-pants before.
My point was the relevance and context of such terminology. It's a bit like teaching students to do undercarriage and prop pitch checks when downwind in a C152; irrelevant and, in the long-term, potentially unsafe (mental conditioning).
Must go, got a CTR to avoid.
PS. Life isn't too bad at all. In fact, it's downright brilliant.
My point was the relevance and context of such terminology. It's a bit like teaching students to do undercarriage and prop pitch checks when downwind in a C152; irrelevant and, in the long-term, potentially unsafe (mental conditioning).
Must go, got a CTR to avoid.
PS. Life isn't too bad at all. In fact, it's downright brilliant.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion, you need to offer some specific evidence for your assertions, otherwise they must be assumed to be apocryphal (like coolbeans' and landedoutagain's posts, above).
I don't see any problem with reminding pilots to remain outside CAS, as theres so friggin much of it around me. If you are competant enough to remain outside then thats fantastic. However a minority of pilots seem to find it difficult to remain outside the ATZ, never mind the Gatwick zone.
I don't want to insult the good pilots, but I don't want to catch any flack because the bad one says
"But the controller didn't say remain outside"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I initiated this post I was really complaining about ATCOs always telling me to remain clear of CAS when I had absolutely no intention of going into it, was not on track to go into it and not at a Flight Level that would put me into it. My experience is that this piece of advice, which the ATCOs might regard as an instruction, (but isn't), is being said more and more and not in a relevant context. Isn't this something worth bringing up?
According to mr.777, who must be a very arrogant controller and rather typical of the unpleasant controller no one wants to encounter, I am being give a BASIC INSTRUCTION! Has he ever left his building and discovered that there is a mass of non-controlled airspace out there, and if an aircraft is passing within a dozen miles of a CTZ or CTA Unit it might just be a useful thing to give a call to the controlling unit as a courtesy?
Why does mr.777 assume that every call requires an INSTRUCTION in return? It is being given instructions when one is on own nav, well away from CAS, and not intending to go into it, that can get tedious, and it is increasingly being done needlessly. (mr.777, I realise that you had no idea that this was happening.)
For instance, a flight from EMA to Guernsey carried out recently in a business twin at levels gradually increasing along the route until passing west abeam at FL100. Brize felt the need to tell me to RCOCAS before I was able to pass any message. Bournemouth told me to RCOCAS after they knew I was southbound at FL100 and nowhere near their CAS, and Jersey told me the same thing.
The last one was fine, and perfectly sensible and acceptable. I was heading for their CAS at a FL that would take me into it. But the others? Just rote. The controllers are clearly being drilled and have to say certain things even if they are inapplicable, and that is my point.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR _ it is time you went back to work to see what is happening, although you will need to get well away from the London area if you really want to appreciate it. And as for deciding that my post was pathetic, that is your view. You immediately assumed I am a PPL: I am not. I have probably had 35 IR renewals and I know things are changing and I will keep up with it. But aren't you retired now?
Generally is is disappointing there are ATCOs posting responses on here that are not measured - they are just put-downs. You lot hate GA don't you - go on, admit it: mumpties, Sunday Drivers, "you guys think you are the only aircraft in the sky", your GA chums, "if you sound like an idiot" etc. What you write shows you are prejudiced.
To the majority of very decent ATCOs - could we try and keep this RCOCAS "instruction" to those situations where you feel it is needed. In other words, let's use judgement rather than rote, as it looks like it is not a mandatory call you have to make?
RB
According to mr.777, who must be a very arrogant controller and rather typical of the unpleasant controller no one wants to encounter, I am being give a BASIC INSTRUCTION! Has he ever left his building and discovered that there is a mass of non-controlled airspace out there, and if an aircraft is passing within a dozen miles of a CTZ or CTA Unit it might just be a useful thing to give a call to the controlling unit as a courtesy?
Why does mr.777 assume that every call requires an INSTRUCTION in return? It is being given instructions when one is on own nav, well away from CAS, and not intending to go into it, that can get tedious, and it is increasingly being done needlessly. (mr.777, I realise that you had no idea that this was happening.)
For instance, a flight from EMA to Guernsey carried out recently in a business twin at levels gradually increasing along the route until passing west abeam at FL100. Brize felt the need to tell me to RCOCAS before I was able to pass any message. Bournemouth told me to RCOCAS after they knew I was southbound at FL100 and nowhere near their CAS, and Jersey told me the same thing.
The last one was fine, and perfectly sensible and acceptable. I was heading for their CAS at a FL that would take me into it. But the others? Just rote. The controllers are clearly being drilled and have to say certain things even if they are inapplicable, and that is my point.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR _ it is time you went back to work to see what is happening, although you will need to get well away from the London area if you really want to appreciate it. And as for deciding that my post was pathetic, that is your view. You immediately assumed I am a PPL: I am not. I have probably had 35 IR renewals and I know things are changing and I will keep up with it. But aren't you retired now?
Generally is is disappointing there are ATCOs posting responses on here that are not measured - they are just put-downs. You lot hate GA don't you - go on, admit it: mumpties, Sunday Drivers, "you guys think you are the only aircraft in the sky", your GA chums, "if you sound like an idiot" etc. What you write shows you are prejudiced.
To the majority of very decent ATCOs - could we try and keep this RCOCAS "instruction" to those situations where you feel it is needed. In other words, let's use judgement rather than rote, as it looks like it is not a mandatory call you have to make?
RB
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks perusal for you tail covering response. I fly, on average, 5 times a day from a flying school close to Class D airspace and underneath a variety of Class D/E TMA.
If you want to make a correct point, based on the above on the next nice day you are flying and you are told to remain outside controlled airspace, you can inform said controller that you will not be complying with that instruction.
After the almost guaranteed verbal lashing, you can report entering controlled airspace and leaving the frequency........as you climb into the Class E controlled airspace VFR
In your case I can see where you are coming from because not only is it wrong for a unit other than an ATC unit to issue instructions i.e. FISO etc can not give instructions. It is wrong to say remain outside controlled airspace when in your case you can legally enter the class E controlled airspace without even asking.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Generally is is disappointing there are ATCOs posting responses on here that are not measured - they are just put-downs. You lot hate GA don't you - go on, admit it: mumpties, Sunday Drivers, "you guys think you are the only aircraft in the sky", your GA chums, "if you sound like an idiot" etc. What you write shows you are prejudiced.
and I hate GA
And schedules
and the military
Well just pilots in general, this job would be easier if they just left their aircraft on the ramp, looking nice and neat
I'll be honest, I hate the minority of pilots (GA/Training/scheduled/whoever) who result in hassle and paperwork when they infringe CAS and should know better.
Love the rest of you though
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From an Antipodean point of view
When they have incident investigations they are always looking for what more could have been done to stop the holes in the cheese lining up.
If ROCAS (which I agree with) could have been a mitigating factor it is pushed as a defence against Violation of Controlled Airspace (VCA).
To those pilots who we are tasked with separating feel that it in someway maligns their airmanship, please don't take it personally. It is not aimed at you as an individual but at the pilot who is not as competent as you. It is not nice to be invited to 'Tea and Biccies' with management with 20/20 hindsight to discuss why your seemingly unambiguous instruction was interpreted differently by a pilot.
Over here, it is a requirement to instruct a pilot with taxiing instructions to hold short of a runway they may need to cross. To most pilots it would be obvious that they need a clearance to cross or enter a runway. It is the 'other ones' it is aimed at. You can obviously guess what the outcome may be if this instruction is not given.
Just take it as water off a ducks back if you feel that you are given an instruction that treats you as the lowest common denominator. We probably don't know you and are just covering our own backside in case you are an inexperienced pilot.
Life is too short, to get your stress levels up over this.
When they have incident investigations they are always looking for what more could have been done to stop the holes in the cheese lining up.
If ROCAS (which I agree with) could have been a mitigating factor it is pushed as a defence against Violation of Controlled Airspace (VCA).
To those pilots who we are tasked with separating feel that it in someway maligns their airmanship, please don't take it personally. It is not aimed at you as an individual but at the pilot who is not as competent as you. It is not nice to be invited to 'Tea and Biccies' with management with 20/20 hindsight to discuss why your seemingly unambiguous instruction was interpreted differently by a pilot.
Over here, it is a requirement to instruct a pilot with taxiing instructions to hold short of a runway they may need to cross. To most pilots it would be obvious that they need a clearance to cross or enter a runway. It is the 'other ones' it is aimed at. You can obviously guess what the outcome may be if this instruction is not given.
Just take it as water off a ducks back if you feel that you are given an instruction that treats you as the lowest common denominator. We probably don't know you and are just covering our own backside in case you are an inexperienced pilot.
Life is too short, to get your stress levels up over this.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the Aussie said
I believe the MATS pt 1 approved term is numpties
I take the earlier comment that if the pilots airmanship is so poor that he will enter CAS without a clearance then saying remain outside controlled airspace is unlikely to deter him.
However telling management "well he sounded crap so I didnt think there was any point asking him to ROCAS as he was going to bust it anyway"
would probably be frowned upon
Originally Posted by Riverboat
mumpties
I take the earlier comment that if the pilots airmanship is so poor that he will enter CAS without a clearance then saying remain outside controlled airspace is unlikely to deter him.
However telling management "well he sounded crap so I didnt think there was any point asking him to ROCAS as he was going to bust it anyway"
would probably be frowned upon
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very balanced view from Riverboat, with which I fundamentally agree.
Perhaps we need to ask why does this apparent arrogance and superiority come across from some ATCOs?
Psychologically speaking, it seems for some ATCOs to be more about establishing the authority gradient, than actually being an operational necessity. I believe Riverboat is correct in saying that there are prejudices among some ATCOs which can serve to make life more difficult than to help. The fact is - and I know it is a corny cliché - but "you lot are down there because we are up here, and not the other way round".
However, I am not suggesting that the authority gradient should always be in favour of the pilot either. The point is that it should be level, or thereabouts. Clearly there are times when it needs to tip one way or the other. For example, with a Mayday situation, the pilot will need to call the shots. Alternatively, in a potential conflict alert, the ATCO generally has the bigger picture.
All this is not to say that there should not be mutual respect for each others responsibilities. Of course there should. We are all in the same situation of trying to improve the overall safety of flying. Too many posts from ATCOs on this thread seem to indicate or imply a prejudiced or disproportionate viewpoint against the "idiot" or "numpty" pilot. At the very least this will inevitably impinge on the smooth running of the ATS - and at worst, it can have a serious and detrimental effect on safety.
Back to the thread and to the central issue which seems to be whether you need to recite "ROCAS" by rote, every time you are called up. I, and many others, believe that to do so is unnecessary, a waste of R/T space and can be very irritating to a large number of pilots, as this thread has illustrated. However, if you really feel motivated otherwise because of ar$e-covering, pedantry (or even plain bloody-mindedness!), I respectfully suggest that you should at least comply fully with CAP493 MATS Part 1, where it says (in Section 3, Chapter 1, para. 21) ...
... and always pass an onward clearance time and a time check.
So can we have less of the prejudice, please ... ?
JD
Perhaps we need to ask why does this apparent arrogance and superiority come across from some ATCOs?
Psychologically speaking, it seems for some ATCOs to be more about establishing the authority gradient, than actually being an operational necessity. I believe Riverboat is correct in saying that there are prejudices among some ATCOs which can serve to make life more difficult than to help. The fact is - and I know it is a corny cliché - but "you lot are down there because we are up here, and not the other way round".
However, I am not suggesting that the authority gradient should always be in favour of the pilot either. The point is that it should be level, or thereabouts. Clearly there are times when it needs to tip one way or the other. For example, with a Mayday situation, the pilot will need to call the shots. Alternatively, in a potential conflict alert, the ATCO generally has the bigger picture.
All this is not to say that there should not be mutual respect for each others responsibilities. Of course there should. We are all in the same situation of trying to improve the overall safety of flying. Too many posts from ATCOs on this thread seem to indicate or imply a prejudiced or disproportionate viewpoint against the "idiot" or "numpty" pilot. At the very least this will inevitably impinge on the smooth running of the ATS - and at worst, it can have a serious and detrimental effect on safety.
Back to the thread and to the central issue which seems to be whether you need to recite "ROCAS" by rote, every time you are called up. I, and many others, believe that to do so is unnecessary, a waste of R/T space and can be very irritating to a large number of pilots, as this thread has illustrated. However, if you really feel motivated otherwise because of ar$e-covering, pedantry (or even plain bloody-mindedness!), I respectfully suggest that you should at least comply fully with CAP493 MATS Part 1, where it says (in Section 3, Chapter 1, para. 21) ...
21 Joining and Overflying Aircraft
When an aircraft requests permission to enter controlled airspace for the purposes of landing at the associated aerodrome or transiting the airspace, it may not be possible, for traffic reasons, to issue that clearance immediately. In such situations controllers shall advise the pilot to remain outside controlled airspace, when to expect clearance and give a time check.
... and always pass an onward clearance time and a time check.
So can we have less of the prejudice, please ... ?
JD
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this is not to say that there should not be mutual respect for each others responsibilities. Of course there should. We are all in the same situation of trying to improve the overall safety of flying. Too many posts from ATCOs on this thread seem to indicate or imply a prejudiced or disproportionate viewpoint against the "idiot" or "numpty" pilot. At the very least this will inevitably impinge on the smooth running of the ATS - and at worst, it can have a serious and detrimental effect on safety.
I agree some controllers are arrogant sons of bitches, I wouldn't make the judgement based upon a few forum posts as we all know how easy it is to misread tone in a few lines of text.
But to be fair we are only arrogant because we are right
I apologise if ROCAS is being trotted out by rote and is an annoyance to the majority of good competent pilots, but can you bare with us for four words that help sooth us into believing that the vfr departure that has just streaked through the City CTA wasn't our fault
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 29 Acacia Road
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jumbo Driver - a very balanced view there too
To jump back a bit - I think there was also an earlier atsin to much the same effect, although my point was more along the lines of that there is evidence previous phraseology has been removed because of misinterpretation by 'numpties(!)', and that its most likely ROCAS is becoming more commonplace for similar reasons. I accept there's no specific evidence there though!
To some degree there is also the problem that if controllers are required to say this (as decreed by the CAA), then it has to be done - in the case of an incident then we will be asked why we werent following procedures. Consider your own ops manual, if you miss out a checklist and something happens, you would expect to answer some uncomfortable questions? Or, for example, easyjet flying around at 250kts for economy because their ops requires that - its often a problem so we ask them to speed up, and they do, but I understand the pilots hands are tied somewhat. Procedures and rules are not always to everyones liking! (see my earlier post about terrain clearance)
Riverboat - there is no intention to sound prejudiced here, but the end of your opening post does come across as very prejudiced. And for what its worth, you can be given instructions in the open FIR - advisory routes and receiving DS are two notable examples.
Cows - thread creep, but I always do U/C checks regardless of type, i feel its easier to say u/c fixed, than to not do them but then forgot (mental conditioning!) when i am flying a retractable type! Strangely, I dont do prop checks the way, but always reds blues greens on final regardless of type. No idea which is safer though
To jump back a bit - I think there was also an earlier atsin to much the same effect, although my point was more along the lines of that there is evidence previous phraseology has been removed because of misinterpretation by 'numpties(!)', and that its most likely ROCAS is becoming more commonplace for similar reasons. I accept there's no specific evidence there though!
To some degree there is also the problem that if controllers are required to say this (as decreed by the CAA), then it has to be done - in the case of an incident then we will be asked why we werent following procedures. Consider your own ops manual, if you miss out a checklist and something happens, you would expect to answer some uncomfortable questions? Or, for example, easyjet flying around at 250kts for economy because their ops requires that - its often a problem so we ask them to speed up, and they do, but I understand the pilots hands are tied somewhat. Procedures and rules are not always to everyones liking! (see my earlier post about terrain clearance)
Riverboat - there is no intention to sound prejudiced here, but the end of your opening post does come across as very prejudiced. And for what its worth, you can be given instructions in the open FIR - advisory routes and receiving DS are two notable examples.
Cows - thread creep, but I always do U/C checks regardless of type, i feel its easier to say u/c fixed, than to not do them but then forgot (mental conditioning!) when i am flying a retractable type! Strangely, I dont do prop checks the way, but always reds blues greens on final regardless of type. No idea which is safer though
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... I apologise if ROCAS is being trotted out by rote and is an annoyance to the majority of good competent pilots, but can you bare with us for four words that help sooth us into believing that the vfr departure that has just streaked through the City CTA wasn't our fault
JD