LHR Atis and QNH readbacks with a/c type.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The departure ATIS is on 121.935 so older radios might not be able to pick it up. We occasionally get the odd cherokee or similar that can't get it.
Firstly totally agree that QNH passed by ATC is a mandatory readback.
If I call to get a clearance prior to start/pushback and advise I have "Info X" why do I need to state the QNH since this is normally passed again when I call for taxi and the readback is mandatory?
If I am inbound (on a Flight Level) I will be passed QNH when cleared to descend to an altitude and this also requires a mandatory readback so why do I need on initial call to pass QNH?
If I call to get a clearance prior to start/pushback and advise I have "Info X" why do I need to state the QNH since this is normally passed again when I call for taxi and the readback is mandatory?
If I am inbound (on a Flight Level) I will be passed QNH when cleared to descend to an altitude and this also requires a mandatory readback so why do I need on initial call to pass QNH?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of the QNH issue, I have lost track of the number of times that crews state the current ATIS and have ignored half of it by calling the wrong freq, or asking for Pre departure clearance when the ATIS says it isn't available, or...... I could go on. From our end it often appears crews only wait for the letter then stop listening.
Surely it can't be too hard to acknowledge the letter, QNH, aircraft type and stand on first call to GMP. It certainly saves R/T when we don't have to go back and ask for it all again.
Surely it can't be too hard to acknowledge the letter, QNH, aircraft type and stand on first call to GMP. It certainly saves R/T when we don't have to go back and ask for it all again.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
, this is not the original question on the thread - and I don't think anyone is disputing this point - however ...
As I have said, there is just too much unnecessary time-wasting double-speak.
JD
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JD and fireflybob...
That's a moot point, because at LHR we do not give the QNH out at all, either with pushback or taxi.....if you state the correct QNH first time 'round.
The reason? So we can ensure you have the correct QNH. I'm having problems understanding what is so difficult to grasp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fireflybob
If I call to get a clearance prior to start/pushback and advise I have "Info X" why do I need to state the QNH since this is normally passed again when I call for taxi and the readback is mandatory?
... this is precisely the thread question (to which, incidentally, there has not yet been offered a satisfactory answer) and ...
Originally Posted by fireflybob
If I call to get a clearance prior to start/pushback and advise I have "Info X" why do I need to state the QNH since this is normally passed again when I call for taxi and the readback is mandatory?
... this is precisely the thread question (to which, incidentally, there has not yet been offered a satisfactory answer) and ...
The reason? So we can ensure you have the correct QNH. I'm having problems understanding what is so difficult to grasp.
That's a moot point, because at LHR we do not give the QNH out at all, either with pushback or taxi.....if you state the correct QNH first time 'round.
The reason? So we can ensure you have the correct QNH. I'm having problems understanding what is so difficult to grasp.
The reason? So we can ensure you have the correct QNH. I'm having problems understanding what is so difficult to grasp.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My dear Gonzo, this is rather in danger of becoming chicken-and-egg.
It is indeed to your credit at LL that you do not repeat the QNH ad infinitum during our push/start/taxy phase, as others such as fireflybob have to suffer elsewhere. At least you accept that one QNH acknowledgement is sufficient. However, this is not quite the original thread question, which was concerned with why we are asked to acknowledge both the ATIS letter and also to repeat the QNH, which is itself an essential and integral part of the ATIS that we are implicitly acknowledging as having copied and understood. One confirmation of QNH, either explicit or implicit, should suffice.
To a professional, such repetition can be irritating as it is clearly unnecessary R/T clutter; in the same way, I'm sure that you would find it tiresome if we were to be constantly asking you for the QNH during taxy, just in case it had changed. Only in the case where QNH does change from the acknowledged ATIS letter should it need to be mentioned (by you) - and then, of course, it will be read back.
Does that help you to grasp the problem? ... or have I missed the point of your frustration ... ?
JD
To a professional, such repetition can be irritating as it is clearly unnecessary R/T clutter; in the same way, I'm sure that you would find it tiresome if we were to be constantly asking you for the QNH during taxy, just in case it had changed. Only in the case where QNH does change from the acknowledged ATIS letter should it need to be mentioned (by you) - and then, of course, it will be read back.
Does that help you to grasp the problem? ... or have I missed the point of your frustration ... ?
JD
Location, Location, Location
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If it moves, watch it like a hawk: If it doesn't, hit it with a hammer until it does...
Age: 60
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a bystander watching with interest can I make a quick comment.
Fireflybob said:
In this circumstance I assume that you would have already listened to the current ATIS, containing the QNH, prior to contacting the APP controller; you may even have been asked to indicate which version you are working with upon first contact.
No explicit QNH readback would be required until you are instructed to descend to altitude since you will not need to USE the current QNH information until that time.
Jumbo Driver said:
I agree that you are acknowledging receipt of the current ATIS, as is the arriving pilot contacting an Approach unit for the first time.
However, controllers need to be assured that departures are working to the same datum as other inbound traffic that has been required to readback the QNH upon descent to altitude.
If you will; you are 'climbing' to field elevation and need to be informed and acknowledge explicit receipt of that information.
Both situations attempt to trap human factor errors (1012/1021) on the communication side.
Jumbo Driver said:
As another poster pointed out; updates once you are talking to GMC or AIR would be transmitted as a broadcast, trusting that you are concentrating upon the job at hand.
Sorry to intrude.
Fireflybob said:
If I am inbound (on a Flight Level) I will be passed QNH when cleared to descend to an altitude and this ... requires a mandatory readback
No explicit QNH readback would be required until you are instructed to descend to altitude since you will not need to USE the current QNH information until that time.
Jumbo Driver said:
...why we are asked to acknowledge both the ATIS letter and also to repeat the QNH, which is itself an essential and integral part of the ATIS that we are implicitly acknowledging as having copied and understood
However, controllers need to be assured that departures are working to the same datum as other inbound traffic that has been required to readback the QNH upon descent to altitude.
If you will; you are 'climbing' to field elevation and need to be informed and acknowledge explicit receipt of that information.
Both situations attempt to trap human factor errors (1012/1021) on the communication side.
Jumbo Driver said:
Only in the case where QNH does change from the acknowledged ATIS letter should it need to be mentioned (by you) - and then, of course, it will be read back.
Sorry to intrude.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JD,
Why is is that when a flight crew is given a climb/descend instruction, the new level is cross checked between pilots?
Why is it that when a new pressure setting is given, the new setting is cross checked between pilots?
Surely you're both intelligent, resourceful, highly trained people, who would not get it wrong? Surely the handling pilot can be assumed to have heard and entered the correct informtation....Waste of time this cross checking lark, isn't it?
Why is is that when a flight crew is given a climb/descend instruction, the new level is cross checked between pilots?
Why is it that when a new pressure setting is given, the new setting is cross checked between pilots?
Surely you're both intelligent, resourceful, highly trained people, who would not get it wrong? Surely the handling pilot can be assumed to have heard and entered the correct informtation....Waste of time this cross checking lark, isn't it?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mocoman, thank you for your input ... we are in danger of becoming mired in this one, so I will only respond to one point. You say
This of course is an admirable aim, but I would argue that simple repetition is inappropriate and hardly likely to be effective. Firstly, an error is highly unlikely when departing, as any professional worth his salt is going to set the QNH and then check that airfield elevation is correctly displayed, within normal altimeter tolerances. That should take care of any significant (i.e. transpositional) errors which could cause, say, an altitude bust. Smaller errors of 1mb (27' at msl) or so, if they occur, are actually insignificant and not likely to cause such a problem. Secondly, when arriving, as fireflybob has most eloquently said, the initial descent clearance to an altitude is always given together with the QNH, which of course is read back at that time; no additional readback of the QNH is required when acknowledging the arrival ATIS.
Anyway, I digress; the thread topic concerns the unnecessary repetition of QNH with ATIS acknowledgement and I remain totally unconvinced that this particular procedure actually serves to improve safety.
JD
Both situations attempt to trap human factor errors (1012/1021) on the communication side.
Anyway, I digress; the thread topic concerns the unnecessary repetition of QNH with ATIS acknowledgement and I remain totally unconvinced that this particular procedure actually serves to improve safety.
JD
the initial descent clearance to an altitude is always given together with the QNH, which of course is read back at that time; no additional readback of the QNH is required when acknowledging the arrival ATIS.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading back the QNH with the ATIS letter is the only check that LHR ATC have to ensure that you have copied/heard the ATIS QNH correctly.
In probably the busiest time in the cockpit, (emergencies aside), it could be rather simple to be distracted and mishear or write down the wrong QNH. By transmitting it in the manner that LHR require you to do, you have an independant cross check.
Independant cross checks are part and parcel of aviation. This one makes sense because as Gonzo states, it is the only time, if you state the correct QNH, that you will hear it at LHR.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp, it's not a time consuming thing to do, and it does have an added safety benefit. Maybe only one crew per year will get the QNH wrong, but if they can be corrected before getting airborne, then surely this check is worth it?
Lack of professionalism by the OP is what we should be stamping out!
In probably the busiest time in the cockpit, (emergencies aside), it could be rather simple to be distracted and mishear or write down the wrong QNH. By transmitting it in the manner that LHR require you to do, you have an independant cross check.
Independant cross checks are part and parcel of aviation. This one makes sense because as Gonzo states, it is the only time, if you state the correct QNH, that you will hear it at LHR.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp, it's not a time consuming thing to do, and it does have an added safety benefit. Maybe only one crew per year will get the QNH wrong, but if they can be corrected before getting airborne, then surely this check is worth it?
Lack of professionalism by the OP is what we should be stamping out!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You read the QNH back because it is a mandatory readback - as are various other items in a clearance.
How difficult is it really? 4 numbers?
You know then that you have the correct QNH as do I.
I frankly don't care how important you think you are on your flight deck - I, too, won't give you start up until you've managed to readback the QNH properly.
louby
How difficult is it really? 4 numbers?
You know then that you have the correct QNH as do I.
I frankly don't care how important you think you are on your flight deck - I, too, won't give you start up until you've managed to readback the QNH properly.
louby
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, I digress; the thread topic concerns the unnecessary repetition of QNH with ATIS acknowledgement and I remain totally unconvinced that this particular procedure actually serves to improve safety.
Presumably you can now add QNH readbacks to your ever growing list of ATC procedures that you believe are a waste of time. Filed right under "ROCAS" no doubt.
Oh, and just to show that I do have a mind of my own, I completely agree on the point of not passing the QNH to XXX director on arrival...really doesn't bother me if you do or don't as you will get it when you get descent to an altitude.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As many have stated before the tower need to check you have the correct QNH it doesn't take long and it's safety critical. LL check once and that's all that's required.
We need to hear the QNH because it's the rules, simple as that. You want it changed, contact the CAA.
Regarding unneccesary RT it does work the other way. I hail from the LL radar environment and on first contact a/c should pass cleared level, a/c type (yes this is important as I've lost count of the number of incorrectly filed plans, including a few vortex changes!) and ATIS letter.
Now it has become common practice recently for some crews to also include the QNH on first contact with LL director. Why? It doesn't bother me, but 99.99% of the time the a/c is direct to the holding point cleared to a flight level not an altitude. I'll inform the a/c of the QNH when I descend it to an altitude there is no reason for the crew to tell me what it is when they're still at flight levels. Another midly irritating thing is when an a/c is cleared to succesively lower altitudes and continues to read the QNH back with every successive clearance, even though they've read it back correctly once already.
I fear unnecessary R/T loading is a crime committed on both sides of the radio. We need to minimise it without removing the safety nets.
We need to hear the QNH because it's the rules, simple as that. You want it changed, contact the CAA.
Regarding unneccesary RT it does work the other way. I hail from the LL radar environment and on first contact a/c should pass cleared level, a/c type (yes this is important as I've lost count of the number of incorrectly filed plans, including a few vortex changes!) and ATIS letter.
Now it has become common practice recently for some crews to also include the QNH on first contact with LL director. Why? It doesn't bother me, but 99.99% of the time the a/c is direct to the holding point cleared to a flight level not an altitude. I'll inform the a/c of the QNH when I descend it to an altitude there is no reason for the crew to tell me what it is when they're still at flight levels. Another midly irritating thing is when an a/c is cleared to succesively lower altitudes and continues to read the QNH back with every successive clearance, even though they've read it back correctly once already.
I fear unnecessary R/T loading is a crime committed on both sides of the radio. We need to minimise it without removing the safety nets.