Brazilian ATC vs. BA 249
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm in the same boat as Wiggy. Sitting here in the comfort of my house, I still can't understand a lot of what the controller is trying to say. I'm certainly not criticising his English abilities but he should stick to standard phrases, rather than start making up 'new' clearances.
Quite disparaging aren't you, Blind Pew. You'll be delighted know that BA do have briefing notes (including audio/visual for some airfields) and it's not just you ex-BOAC chaps that are so clever to have thought of the idea. As for a clearance limit 'in the event of', I think you need to get back in the books before casting aspersions. A clearance limit is precisely that, it does not need to be added to with loss of comms, loss of radar etc; nothing else need be said. A comms failure is a procedure in its own right and is published so that it can be studied beforehand, not made up on the cuff.
Strange book you've got where understanding a person's accent is associated with flight time and professionalism. I fly into China at least twice a week and still have difficulty understanding a lot of the controllers. This in spite of having flown with lots of ex-BOAC pilots, having a thorough knowledge of China's ATC rules and regs and having tried both 2 hour flights and 12 hour flights beforehand. I say that professionalism has nothing to do with understanding a heavily accented transmission, especially when the controller is making up stuff as he goes along i.e. for which you would be unable to brief, despite having BOAC's (not you Mike) wonder notes.
It appears that they did not understand the plain english of "clearance limit in the event of radio or radar failure".
That neither crew member understood controller in spite of flying for 12 hours smells of a lack of professionalism in my book.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dubai and Sunderland
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The controller was only covering his backside with an airline that does not normally operate into that airport. I.e. the radar heading and levels he gave where not terrain safe beyond a certain point hence the radio fail instructions to turn back to VOR if no comms by a set radial! A local operator would be familiar with this. I could understand what he wanted but it was totally different from what BA would be used to! Once he went back to basic's heads/levels to ILS there was no problem!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: behind the fruit
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The controller was only covering his backside with an airline that does not normally operate into that airport.
We do it all the time, with limited services, SSR only, terrain clearance blah blah blah. It's only @rse covering, nothing to do with service provision.
All well and good but as a native English speaker even when issuing instruction to native English speakers, I will rarely issue more than two specific pieces of data information in one transmission. To a local operator, maybe three if they are routine. The addition of crazy clearance limits with the repetition was the problem. I work in a non English native environment and even basic directions are confusing to many operators. Even the differences between 2 and 3 can cause issues to different ears. The way this guy spat out 330 or what ever radial from a phonetically spelled omni and then backed it up with the name then the spelling along with heading and altitude info would be confusing to Speedbird even into a British port.
The summary is that the pilots were confused and rightly so. I am surprised (well not so much knowing about fuel policy) that they did not break off the approach as they suggested.
The summary is that the pilots were confused and rightly so. I am surprised (well not so much knowing about fuel policy) that they did not break off the approach as they suggested.
Standard RT would have helped here - I couldn't understand his instructions either. I spend a lot of my working career flying around China where similar language problems exist, but where the controllers reduce the threats by the use of standard phraseology and it works.
I know wht this crew were going through. I have been to GIG twice and the ATC struck me as being somewhat less than special!
I know wht this crew were going through. I have been to GIG twice and the ATC struck me as being somewhat less than special!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: U.K
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm
On first listen I thought the ATC was more than terrible.
On second listening and after getting a copy of the GIG Radar vectoring chart, the controllers instructions, although not perfect, make sense although I've never heard of an instruction, "incase of radio fail, continue heading for 1 minute then intercept LOC...etc.etc." Tricky situation for the crew if they didn't understand what he was saying....
Guess comms are a problem in the Rio TMA?
On second listening and after getting a copy of the GIG Radar vectoring chart, the controllers instructions, although not perfect, make sense although I've never heard of an instruction, "incase of radio fail, continue heading for 1 minute then intercept LOC...etc.etc." Tricky situation for the crew if they didn't understand what he was saying....
Guess comms are a problem in the Rio TMA?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sao Jose dos Campos-Brazil
Age: 54
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys,
That's what happens when they send only ICAO 4 pilots to Rio!
Lol sorry for the joke, but could not resist.
Now, seriously, what happens there is that by brazilian regulations, when atc starts vectoring, they are supposed to give you a vector limit for safety reasons.
This controller just translated this procedure to english, which is quite confusing, and got a crew that is not used to it. In the end they made it all right.
In my opinion, the controller english is not that bad and the problem was to the brazilian procedure plain translation.
The origin of this procedure was an accident long time ago when a Rio Dep controller vectored a Lufthansa cargo 707 at 2000ft and it crashed close to Teresopolis city in the mountains because the controller forgot it in a northern heading.
I fly quite often to Rio and its tma area has a lot of mountains and might me a bit trick to land sometimes. Not a real mistery, but you got to know what to expect in that crowded area.
All the best,
Sydy
That's what happens when they send only ICAO 4 pilots to Rio!
Lol sorry for the joke, but could not resist.
Now, seriously, what happens there is that by brazilian regulations, when atc starts vectoring, they are supposed to give you a vector limit for safety reasons.
This controller just translated this procedure to english, which is quite confusing, and got a crew that is not used to it. In the end they made it all right.
In my opinion, the controller english is not that bad and the problem was to the brazilian procedure plain translation.
The origin of this procedure was an accident long time ago when a Rio Dep controller vectored a Lufthansa cargo 707 at 2000ft and it crashed close to Teresopolis city in the mountains because the controller forgot it in a northern heading.
I fly quite often to Rio and its tma area has a lot of mountains and might me a bit trick to land sometimes. Not a real mistery, but you got to know what to expect in that crowded area.
All the best,
Sydy
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: in a TCU
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but this procedure doesn't make sense, the problem should be solved by hiring controllers with good memory, at least good enough not to forget planes on a colliding heading.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: in a TCU
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sidy, I work as air traffic controller, I do mistakes like all humans being do and the risk is directly proportional to the workload;
You are engaged in a big responsability when initiating a radar vectoring, you can't forget someone on the heading prompting a CFIT, it's a dirty and gross mistake wich no procedures will avoid but just human resource and training.
That's just my analysis, not meant to argue or hurt, regards.
You are engaged in a big responsability when initiating a radar vectoring, you can't forget someone on the heading prompting a CFIT, it's a dirty and gross mistake wich no procedures will avoid but just human resource and training.
That's just my analysis, not meant to argue or hurt, regards.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sao Jose dos Campos-Brazil
Age: 54
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Blissbak,
Let me say that, no hurt intended.
I concur, just like the majority of brazilian pilots, that this rule is dumb. It just increases the comms traffic volume.
There is more... On finals you have to state your landing gear status as "gear down and locked" or "fixed gear" just because a Col. forgot to lower his landing gear in 1969... No joke... This rule still stands in here, but I've seen it somewhere else as well...
Anyway, I agree that we can improve atc here in Brazil, but as this "vector limit" rule stands, we have to follow it. You got a point it can be improved and I got a point we have to follow the current rule.
I travel worldwide and this kind of atc regulation difference is the most difficult part of it. I do like the FAA way to control air traffic and, in my opinion, it is the most expeditious and safe way to do it.
I do think it is a matter of culture, but we got no window here to bypass our regulatory agency.
It is nice to see other people's point of view.
All the best,
Sydy
Let me say that, no hurt intended.
I concur, just like the majority of brazilian pilots, that this rule is dumb. It just increases the comms traffic volume.
There is more... On finals you have to state your landing gear status as "gear down and locked" or "fixed gear" just because a Col. forgot to lower his landing gear in 1969... No joke... This rule still stands in here, but I've seen it somewhere else as well...
Anyway, I agree that we can improve atc here in Brazil, but as this "vector limit" rule stands, we have to follow it. You got a point it can be improved and I got a point we have to follow the current rule.
I travel worldwide and this kind of atc regulation difference is the most difficult part of it. I do like the FAA way to control air traffic and, in my opinion, it is the most expeditious and safe way to do it.
I do think it is a matter of culture, but we got no window here to bypass our regulatory agency.
It is nice to see other people's point of view.
All the best,
Sydy
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Uk
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously, Blind Pew must be a wind up merchant surely!! Cant believe his comments.
I'm an ATCO in the UK (now, not reminiscing back to the 70's) and what the GIG ATCO did by passing such a long winded instruction, when other posters have already stated that it is a flawed and convoluted rt fail procedure showed a complete lack of awareness for a crew that had just finished a 12hr plus flight and may not be that familiar as regular GIG pilots. He should have broken the transmissions down as already stated. Secondly, whether he can speak the best english or not he wasnt using std rtf for most of the approach, rarely identified himself or used the full BAW callsign.
Complete pants!!
I'm an ATCO in the UK (now, not reminiscing back to the 70's) and what the GIG ATCO did by passing such a long winded instruction, when other posters have already stated that it is a flawed and convoluted rt fail procedure showed a complete lack of awareness for a crew that had just finished a 12hr plus flight and may not be that familiar as regular GIG pilots. He should have broken the transmissions down as already stated. Secondly, whether he can speak the best english or not he wasnt using std rtf for most of the approach, rarely identified himself or used the full BAW callsign.
Complete pants!!
