Brazilian ATC vs. BA 249
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crew did very well to keep their cool, it did sound rather confusing!
Am I the only one who thinks all BA FO's on the triple sound the same? Or is there just the one?!
HD
Am I the only one who thinks all BA FO's on the triple sound the same? Or is there just the one?!
HD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've noticed so many comm failure instructions and don't understand why.
Sorry for my ignorance, but I've never seen these confusing instructions around the world, especially in congested terminals, therefore what's the standard procedure an ATC has to follow in such cases?
Thanks.
Sorry for my ignorance, but I've never seen these confusing instructions around the world, especially in congested terminals, therefore what's the standard procedure an ATC has to follow in such cases?
Thanks.
Last edited by hamil; 7th Jun 2012 at 07:45.
Not a problem if you understand the reasoning and aren't 
tired.
Clearance limits and radio failure procedures became standard into RIO after a couple of CFTs - one of which got lost in the system and flew on under the belief that they were still being actively controlled until a large lump of granite stopped them in their tracks.
Perhaps the crew should have had some training in what to expect when flying into Rio.
Obviously they didn't understand the significance of being cleared to establish on the localizer either!
tired.Clearance limits and radio failure procedures became standard into RIO after a couple of CFTs - one of which got lost in the system and flew on under the belief that they were still being actively controlled until a large lump of granite stopped them in their tracks.
Perhaps the crew should have had some training in what to expect when flying into Rio.
Obviously they didn't understand the significance of being cleared to establish on the localizer either!
Hamil generally depends on the efficiency of company and crew preperation.
Had a shock when I left Big Airlines and discovered that one of our European destinations mixed IFR and VFR traffic with the onus on all traffic being responsible for avoidance in VMC - put it down to The old Anglo Saxon arrogance that we do it better than everyone else and they should do the same.
The country concerned didn't use primary radar.
Made one airmiss report after seeing a cigar in a Cessna pilots mouth when leaving a holding pattern - the report said that it wasn't a traffic conflict or words to that affect.
As it happens I was reading the report in climb and glanced across to see a helium balloon about a kilometre away....
Had a shock when I left Big Airlines and discovered that one of our European destinations mixed IFR and VFR traffic with the onus on all traffic being responsible for avoidance in VMC - put it down to The old Anglo Saxon arrogance that we do it better than everyone else and they should do the same.
The country concerned didn't use primary radar.
Made one airmiss report after seeing a cigar in a Cessna pilots mouth when leaving a holding pattern - the report said that it wasn't a traffic conflict or words to that affect.
As it happens I was reading the report in climb and glanced across to see a helium balloon about a kilometre away....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was the ATCO drunk? Seriously, that what it sounds like.
What's the relevance of continually repeating the radio failure procedure? Ironic, since they are in only patchy effective 2-way communication the entire time as it is?!
Think the BA crew come out of this very well....
Brings up a question: Realise the complexity of doing so, but could the BA crew have requested another controller, e.g. a supervisor to be brought on frequency?
PS. Reminds of times in France when have called up a regional airport for zone entry/joining instructions to find myself blasted with a full ATIS at barely comprehensible hyper-speed.
What's the relevance of continually repeating the radio failure procedure? Ironic, since they are in only patchy effective 2-way communication the entire time as it is?!
Think the BA crew come out of this very well....
Brings up a question: Realise the complexity of doing so, but could the BA crew have requested another controller, e.g. a supervisor to be brought on frequency?
PS. Reminds of times in France when have called up a regional airport for zone entry/joining instructions to find myself blasted with a full ATIS at barely comprehensible hyper-speed.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
blindpew - I'm not sure if that comment was aimed at me, but you're picking the wrong target I'm afraid.
1. This has been done a million times elsewhere, but the only logical conclusion if you've been around the world a bit and thought this through is that if there is to be one internationally understood language in the world for ATC then let's use it and let's all be trained sufficiently well to permit maximum communication. English, ahead of several other options, has been chosen. Yes, a post-imperial consequence, but it is not entirely unsuitable for the purpose linguistically, and, well, that's life.
2. Presuming the culture of others on an online forum and attaching epithets is a losing and (with all due respect, arrogant...) game. I was communicating in French with ATC at the time.
3. Transmitting large quantities of superfluous information on an ATC freq with poor diction does not add to communication, it diminishes it. This is regardless of whether either ATCO or pilot is a native speaker or not. There are no prizes for poor or incomplete understanding, only penalties.
1. This has been done a million times elsewhere, but the only logical conclusion if you've been around the world a bit and thought this through is that if there is to be one internationally understood language in the world for ATC then let's use it and let's all be trained sufficiently well to permit maximum communication. English, ahead of several other options, has been chosen. Yes, a post-imperial consequence, but it is not entirely unsuitable for the purpose linguistically, and, well, that's life.
2. Presuming the culture of others on an online forum and attaching epithets is a losing and (with all due respect, arrogant...) game. I was communicating in French with ATC at the time.
3. Transmitting large quantities of superfluous information on an ATC freq with poor diction does not add to communication, it diminishes it. This is regardless of whether either ATCO or pilot is a native speaker or not. There are no prizes for poor or incomplete understanding, only penalties.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have the airlines ever suggested pooling together to aid ATCO training where there appear to be issues? Or, does this run into understandable cultural/national sensitivities?
You may well teach the queens english to foreigners but they revert to their own language syntax.
One has to try and think how johnnie foreigner thinks.
I had absolutely no problem understanding the GIG controller unlike my first trip to JFK in the 70s but then I had an experienced crew who briefed me on what to expect and translated when I didn't understand.
In BOAC there were briefing notes on what to expect wherever we flew in the good old empire....
My last company who incidentally were the first to fly direct from middle Europe to GIG had similar briefing notes....
That neither crew member understood controller in spite of flying for 12 hours smells of a lack of professionalism in my book.
And what would they have done steaming along at three grand with a radio failure....
One has to try and think how johnnie foreigner thinks.
I had absolutely no problem understanding the GIG controller unlike my first trip to JFK in the 70s but then I had an experienced crew who briefed me on what to expect and translated when I didn't understand.
In BOAC there were briefing notes on what to expect wherever we flew in the good old empire....
My last company who incidentally were the first to fly direct from middle Europe to GIG had similar briefing notes....
That neither crew member understood controller in spite of flying for 12 hours smells of a lack of professionalism in my book.
And what would they have done steaming along at three grand with a radio failure....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely ATC comms has its own stripped down, interrogative, syntax, which is designed to avoid this very problem?
Agree though that it is abused by many, including some supposedly in the anglophone world. Quite what are certain JFK controllers, remarkable though they are, trying to prove is unclear. Either they are there to communicate or they are not.
Perhaps the greatest relief here is that it wasn't a mayday (at night, in solid IMC).
Agree though that it is abused by many, including some supposedly in the anglophone world. Quite what are certain JFK controllers, remarkable though they are, trying to prove is unclear. Either they are there to communicate or they are not.
Perhaps the greatest relief here is that it wasn't a mayday (at night, in solid IMC).
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: CENSORED
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re-Read
Blind Pew, maybe once you are down from the high horse you can re-read my post?
At no point did I say they didn't understand the instructions, you are saying that and you are saying it smells of unprofessionalism.
During my ATC training, one instructor x-EGLL, said the last thing a B747 crew, who have just flown long haul from XXX, needs its endless amounts of information on arrival. In short KEEP IT SIMPLE, there is another word but I think most know what that is.
the last thing they need is complicated instructions
During my ATC training, one instructor x-EGLL, said the last thing a B747 crew, who have just flown long haul from XXX, needs its endless amounts of information on arrival. In short KEEP IT SIMPLE, there is another word but I think most know what that is.
I don't think the Kennedy controllers are trying to prove anything - they are extremely professional operating in their own environment in their own language.
I don't have the same view of "repeat please" pilots or controllers though...
The big question is that BA probably accepted a radar vector below area MSA which in my book should have an associated published procedure in the event of comms failure which the controller is obliged to remind the crew of especially after a previous accident.
It appears that they did not understand the plain english of "clearance limit in the event of radio or radar failure".
It would only take a simple briefing note that in the event of accepting a non procedural approach expect radio failure clearance limit from Approach controller, if none received request or follow XYZ.
Sadly BA has some sad ideas re professionalism as demonstrated by the LAX flight especially the little bit where they asked the pax what they had seen at night after the engine popped.
Basic airmanship - don't descend below MSA unless you know where you are and have plan B if ATC goes quiet.
I don't have the same view of "repeat please" pilots or controllers though...
The big question is that BA probably accepted a radar vector below area MSA which in my book should have an associated published procedure in the event of comms failure which the controller is obliged to remind the crew of especially after a previous accident.
It appears that they did not understand the plain english of "clearance limit in the event of radio or radar failure".
It would only take a simple briefing note that in the event of accepting a non procedural approach expect radio failure clearance limit from Approach controller, if none received request or follow XYZ.
Sadly BA has some sad ideas re professionalism as demonstrated by the LAX flight especially the little bit where they asked the pax what they had seen at night after the engine popped.
Basic airmanship - don't descend below MSA unless you know where you are and have plan B if ATC goes quiet.
Just crashing needlessly but please don't ask me about the frogs!
My last flight with them was to Dubai and vowed never again - won't consider AF either except those flights operated by CityJet who are a pleasure to fly with.
My last flight with them was to Dubai and vowed never again - won't consider AF either except those flights operated by CityJet who are a pleasure to fly with.
Like others here I've been there (GIG), heard it, done it.
Sat in the comfort of our office chairs listening to it on a "tape" is one thing, being sure you've got it right when you're dealing with significant terrain issues and/or avoiding Cbs is another thing entirely. It's hard work, especially after a long flight and frankly I don't blame the guys for not understanding things first time round and the trying to clarify what was being said, despite what the Monday morning quarter backs on here might think.
Sat in the comfort of our office chairs listening to it on a "tape" is one thing, being sure you've got it right when you're dealing with significant terrain issues and/or avoiding Cbs is another thing entirely. It's hard work, especially after a long flight and frankly I don't blame the guys for not understanding things first time round and the trying to clarify what was being said, despite what the Monday morning quarter backs on here might think.
Last edited by wiggy; 7th Jun 2012 at 22:40.