"Expect an ILS approach"?
Thread Starter
Hi - sorry - have been away, but thanks for the replies. I think we are going round in circles a bit.
My reason for posting this was to explore whether the amount of uneccessary chat could be reduced on frequencies that can be very busy. This was a small example to 'test the water' as it were and the receptivness of ATC.
U
My reason for posting this was to explore whether the amount of uneccessary chat could be reduced on frequencies that can be very busy. This was a small example to 'test the water' as it were and the receptivness of ATC.
U
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally think it's a good item of information to include, even if it may add to the length of the broadcast.
I had a trip recently where there was nothing in the NOTAMS to suggest that the ILS was not going to be operating and there was no heads up on the ATIS either. So we briefed for the ILS and on first contact with approach (somewhere in Middle East - can't remember where) the controller said 'maintain high speed for a straight in RNAV approach'.
Had that nugget of information been included in the ATIS, it would have avoided re programming the FMC plus a rebrief, which was all done below 10,000ft!
I had a trip recently where there was nothing in the NOTAMS to suggest that the ILS was not going to be operating and there was no heads up on the ATIS either. So we briefed for the ILS and on first contact with approach (somewhere in Middle East - can't remember where) the controller said 'maintain high speed for a straight in RNAV approach'.
Had that nugget of information been included in the ATIS, it would have avoided re programming the FMC plus a rebrief, which was all done below 10,000ft!
Last edited by Mister Geezer; 31st Jul 2012 at 22:52.
Thread Starter
Mister Geezer - this is EXACTLY MY POINT. 
On that day, you needed to know that the usual approach that you expected was NOT available. The lack of the ILS was not NOTAMED either. So on the ATIS, a message saying "expect an RNAV approach" would have been entirely appropriate. It would have given you the heads up you required and you would have briefed accordingly.
What I'm trying to get across is that on the 90% of occasions when an airfield with an ILS is using it's ILS; we don't need to be told every time on the ATIS to expect an ILS. We ONLY need to be told if it's NOT using it.
I think you guys are winding me up by pretending you don't understand
U
On that day, you needed to know that the usual approach that you expected was NOT available. The lack of the ILS was not NOTAMED either. So on the ATIS, a message saying "expect an RNAV approach" would have been entirely appropriate. It would have given you the heads up you required and you would have briefed accordingly.
What I'm trying to get across is that on the 90% of occasions when an airfield with an ILS is using it's ILS; we don't need to be told every time on the ATIS to expect an ILS. We ONLY need to be told if it's NOT using it.
I think you guys are winding me up by pretending you don't understand
U
Last edited by Uplinker; 3rd Aug 2012 at 10:15.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 1500m from DXB 30L
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do so many people insist on being so god damn rude on this forum.
There really is no need when someone is simply asking a question to satisfy curiosity.
There really is no need when someone is simply asking a question to satisfy curiosity.
Last edited by marcoalza; 14th Aug 2012 at 08:17.
The information "expect an ILS approach" means that there is no point in requesting a visual approach - because it won't be granted.
As a Bizjet pilot our standard approach is a visual approach so the information is useful to us.
As a Bizjet pilot our standard approach is a visual approach so the information is useful to us.
Last edited by Trim Stab; 15th Aug 2012 at 22:12.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The information "expect an ILS approach" means that there is no point in requesting a visual approach - because it won't be granted.
As a Bizjet pilot our standard approach is a visual approach so the information is useful to us.
As a Bizjet pilot our standard approach is a visual approach so the information is useful to us.
Uplinker; you seem to be unaware that all RTF is recorded and the recordings are kept in case of an incident; it therefore behoves ATC to 'record' exactly what is said in order for any inquiry to proceed, hence the 'need' to pass this information to all flights.
Say again? Certainly not the case where I work.
As a Bizjet pilot our standard approach is a visual approach so the information is useful to us.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You miss my point. I am an ATCO. My ATIS says "Runway 26, ILS/DME approach". On first contact I tell the pilot "vectoring for an ILS/DME approach, runway 26". Frequently, the pilot will report the aerodrome in sight and request a visual approach, which I will then approve (subject to traffic). This goes for every controller at my unit, and I expect at a lot of others too.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am an ATCO. My ATIS says "Runway 26, ILS/DME approach". On first contact I tell the pilot "vectoring for an ILS/DME approach, runway 26". Frequently, the pilot will report the aerodrome in sight and request a visual approach, which I will then approve (subject to traffic). This goes for every controller at my unit, and I expect at a lot of others too.
(Except for the "runway 26" bit
)
Last edited by Glamdring; 19th Aug 2012 at 10:49.
Thread Starter
Hi Chevvron,
I don't see where on this thread you can draw the conclusion that : "I seem to be unaware that RTF is recorded". Of course I know this, but that has no relevance to what I'm on about here.
I am trying to enquire if this phrase could be omitted from the ATIS if it is the normal approach aid used by the airfield for 95% of the time. OR: instead of the long winded "Runway 35. Expect an ILS approach", could it not be: "ILS runway 35"? This would allow the ATIS to rotate more quickly which is useful if one is trying to quickly get an ATIS update, and don't want to be away from the flight and radios for too long.
The point made about it meaning that visuals will not be allowed might have some merit, but the busy commercial airfields I fly from have continuous sequences of aircraft flying ILS's, and requests for visuals are rare.
With more and more traffic in the skies, and busier and busier ATC sectors; wouldn't it be beneficial to make RTF stuff simpler and easier and reduce the number of words used, rather than make it more wordy and more complex?
I would like to emphasise that I am asking this question to try to make things easier for everyone, and am not just criticising.
U
I don't see where on this thread you can draw the conclusion that : "I seem to be unaware that RTF is recorded". Of course I know this, but that has no relevance to what I'm on about here.
I am trying to enquire if this phrase could be omitted from the ATIS if it is the normal approach aid used by the airfield for 95% of the time. OR: instead of the long winded "Runway 35. Expect an ILS approach", could it not be: "ILS runway 35"? This would allow the ATIS to rotate more quickly which is useful if one is trying to quickly get an ATIS update, and don't want to be away from the flight and radios for too long.
The point made about it meaning that visuals will not be allowed might have some merit, but the busy commercial airfields I fly from have continuous sequences of aircraft flying ILS's, and requests for visuals are rare.
With more and more traffic in the skies, and busier and busier ATC sectors; wouldn't it be beneficial to make RTF stuff simpler and easier and reduce the number of words used, rather than make it more wordy and more complex?
I would like to emphasise that I am asking this question to try to make things easier for everyone, and am not just criticising.
U
Last edited by Uplinker; 19th Aug 2012 at 14:29.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kandahar Afghanistan
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless visibility was Unrestricted, we always advertised the ILS so that pilots would have the appropriate approach plate out and ready, so if you get the airport visually and if traffic permitted we would sequence you for the visual approach.
At very busy airports the arrival sequence is usually so stretched out that the ILS ensures that everyone is on the same page as to descents and speeds. It wasn't uncommon for my finals to be stretched out 20 miles from the airport when it was busy.
There is nothing that prevents you from requesting a visual or other type of approach, just do it on initial contract with the approach controller.
At very busy airports the arrival sequence is usually so stretched out that the ILS ensures that everyone is on the same page as to descents and speeds. It wasn't uncommon for my finals to be stretched out 20 miles from the airport when it was busy.
There is nothing that prevents you from requesting a visual or other type of approach, just do it on initial contract with the approach controller.
Thread Starter
I find it hard to believe that pilots approaching a busy commercial airfield in the UK or Europe that is fitted with ILS's will NOT have an ILS plate out. I do not believe they would have an NDB or a VOR plate out instead, or that the news on the ATIS: "expect an ILS approach" will come as a surprise to them.
U
U
Last edited by Uplinker; 24th Aug 2012 at 21:10.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Uplinker, I doubt that you will get the answer you are hoping for. There are many things that are done with the intention of avoiding misunderstandings; this is one of them. I'm afraid that it is not necessarily the case that what you (and, indeed, any one of us) may think is obvious is also obvious to everyone else - and there is a wealth of accident and incident reports, amongst other things, that illustrate the problems that can arise when assumptions are made. That's why in our business we do readbacks and cross checks.
If I were to accept accept your proposal, why should we stop at the type of approach? If there's a westerly wind and a westerly runway, obviously that's the runway that will be in use so there's no need to put that on the ATIS either. In fact, if I think it's a nice day maybe I shouldn't waste time putting the wx on the ATIS.
When I was young and foolish I'm sure I thought similar thoughts on occasions. After almost 35 years working professionally in aviation I now believe that assuming that anyone things the same way as anyone else is not something we can afford to do.
Yes, for you, some things are superfluous because they are obvious; for me too, there are other things that are superfluous. But I'll happily put up with having to tx a bit of information that I think is unnecessary if it means that it helps to avoid someone else flying around in the same airspace making an incorrect assumption.
Of course you may counter that any pilot or controller who is unsure about something will ask for confirmation - just as you would......wouldn't they?
If I were to accept accept your proposal, why should we stop at the type of approach? If there's a westerly wind and a westerly runway, obviously that's the runway that will be in use so there's no need to put that on the ATIS either. In fact, if I think it's a nice day maybe I shouldn't waste time putting the wx on the ATIS.
When I was young and foolish I'm sure I thought similar thoughts on occasions. After almost 35 years working professionally in aviation I now believe that assuming that anyone things the same way as anyone else is not something we can afford to do.
Yes, for you, some things are superfluous because they are obvious; for me too, there are other things that are superfluous. But I'll happily put up with having to tx a bit of information that I think is unnecessary if it means that it helps to avoid someone else flying around in the same airspace making an incorrect assumption.
Of course you may counter that any pilot or controller who is unsure about something will ask for confirmation - just as you would......wouldn't they?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, Uplinker. I am not a pilot or ATCO, so my opinion is just that, an opinion, and it is entirely possible that I am talking nonsense.
However, I work in aviation, and also know some people who work in other sectors where accuracy of information is vital. In my opinion, the design of procedures for operations with a critical need of accuracy (be it landing an aircraft or performing neurosurgery) is more inclined to reiteration of known rules than to omission of them due to assumption. In other words, it is considered safer to communicate the procedures even if they are standard than having the rule of assuming standard procedures if nothing is communicated.
When I studied linguistics (some time ago
), I remember doing theory of communication and discourse analysis, and remember that having the assumption of a standard content to be inferred from an omission of an alternative content is more likely to cause inaccuracy than having the standard content included in the act of communication. Leaving you to assume that if not told otherwise you must expect an ILS approach has a bigger probability of inaccuracy or error than telling you the obvious. If the rule was to assume that if not told otherwise you should expect an ILS approach, there are two kinds of possible communication inaccuracy: one would be to tell you the wrong information (ie expect ILS approach when it is not available) and the other kind of possible error would be not to communicate at all the desired information (ie there is no ILS available and not telling you anything, which would not happen if lack of information was NOT an option), as that would make you assume by default that the standard rule is being followed. The procedure of assuming something if not told otherwise means that in certain circumstances, the lack of information IS the message, so lack of information is an approved operational method. By not having lack of information as an operational option, we eliminate one of the possible two errors.
A "real world" example: You and I are college students and share a room in a flat. As we are both so good looking, every other night we have company and wish to have the room for ourselves for a while. We design a code: if there is a red sock hanging from the doorknob, that means we have company and the other one is not supposed to enter the room, if there is a green sock hanging from the doorknob, that means you can come in, as nothing is happening. Now, if the rule is that "if you don't see a red sock you can enter", I can make two kinds of mistake: placing the wrong colour sock or, out of excitement, forgetting to place a sock at all. In this case, as you don't see a red sock, you assume I am all alone and enter the room, disturbing my privacy 
. If the rule is "there ALWAYS has to be a sock in the door, at all times, and the colour will tell us if we can enter or not", that reduces my possible mistakes to 1: placing the wrong colour, because if I forget to put the sock, that doesn't give you specific information. You would call me on my phone and ask before entering, as we agreed that lack of info doesn't mean anything. If there are two or more options, safety is improved by not making omission one of the options, especially in accuracy-critical operations like flying an aircraft.
So basically, I believe that whoever designs operational safety policies, picks the option more likely to reduce the amount of actions leading to error. And that would be giving information EVEN if it is standard rule.
Sometimes it borders on the ridiculous, but it is universally agreed that whatever eliminates ambiguity in communication makes communication more reliable. lack of information creates ambiguity, so if there is more than one option (ILS/no ILS), supplying that info is safer than assuming one from the omission of the other, and I guess that's why it's done.
But then again, it is only my opinion, and probably just a load of nonsense, but hey, that's why I think it happens. Have a good night.
P.S. I know I could have chosen another "real life" situation, but hey, I have a right to dream!!
However, I work in aviation, and also know some people who work in other sectors where accuracy of information is vital. In my opinion, the design of procedures for operations with a critical need of accuracy (be it landing an aircraft or performing neurosurgery) is more inclined to reiteration of known rules than to omission of them due to assumption. In other words, it is considered safer to communicate the procedures even if they are standard than having the rule of assuming standard procedures if nothing is communicated.
When I studied linguistics (some time ago
), I remember doing theory of communication and discourse analysis, and remember that having the assumption of a standard content to be inferred from an omission of an alternative content is more likely to cause inaccuracy than having the standard content included in the act of communication. Leaving you to assume that if not told otherwise you must expect an ILS approach has a bigger probability of inaccuracy or error than telling you the obvious. If the rule was to assume that if not told otherwise you should expect an ILS approach, there are two kinds of possible communication inaccuracy: one would be to tell you the wrong information (ie expect ILS approach when it is not available) and the other kind of possible error would be not to communicate at all the desired information (ie there is no ILS available and not telling you anything, which would not happen if lack of information was NOT an option), as that would make you assume by default that the standard rule is being followed. The procedure of assuming something if not told otherwise means that in certain circumstances, the lack of information IS the message, so lack of information is an approved operational method. By not having lack of information as an operational option, we eliminate one of the possible two errors.A "real world" example
: You and I are college students and share a room in a flat. As we are both so good looking, every other night we have company and wish to have the room for ourselves for a while. We design a code: if there is a red sock hanging from the doorknob, that means we have company and the other one is not supposed to enter the room, if there is a green sock hanging from the doorknob, that means you can come in, as nothing is happening. Now, if the rule is that "if you don't see a red sock you can enter", I can make two kinds of mistake: placing the wrong colour sock or, out of excitement, forgetting to place a sock at all. In this case, as you don't see a red sock, you assume I am all alone and enter the room, disturbing my privacy . If the rule is "there ALWAYS has to be a sock in the door, at all times, and the colour will tell us if we can enter or not", that reduces my possible mistakes to 1: placing the wrong colour, because if I forget to put the sock, that doesn't give you specific information. You would call me on my phone and ask before entering, as we agreed that lack of info doesn't mean anything. If there are two or more options, safety is improved by not making omission one of the options, especially in accuracy-critical operations like flying an aircraft.So basically, I believe that whoever designs operational safety policies, picks the option more likely to reduce the amount of actions leading to error. And that would be giving information EVEN if it is standard rule.
Sometimes it borders on the ridiculous, but it is universally agreed that whatever eliminates ambiguity in communication makes communication more reliable. lack of information creates ambiguity, so if there is more than one option (ILS/no ILS), supplying that info is safer than assuming one from the omission of the other, and I guess that's why it's done.
But then again, it is only my opinion, and probably just a load of nonsense, but hey, that's why I think it happens. Have a good night.
P.S. I know I could have chosen another "real life" situation, but hey, I have a right to dream!!
Last edited by Vld1977; 27th Aug 2012 at 02:35.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOO MUCH INFO!!!
Hi Uplinker, I TOTALLY support and endorse your query.
There is now a plethora of info bytes which we drivers have to sift through and filter to get to what is really needed.
There appear to be no visual approaches available at Gatport Airwick, unless it's 0400 local and the main rwy is closed for lens polishing or rabbit shooting or whatever.
Then we're doing what we were never trained for-straight in approaches, at night, post 5-8 hours back from somewhere hot 'n smelly and thanks to the modern kit and a bit of anticipation, we can con our Boings or 'Buses into doing the difficult bit.
The "expect an ILS approach" sentence is as superfluous as telling us they'd like us to vacate at "FR" in order to improve the runway's productivity thereby keeping the beancounters happy, but for some odd reason that's not included.
25 years of using that airport and I don't recall any serious reported incidents or accidents due to aircrew getting caught with their craft NOT set up for the ILS.
It's just representative of the creeping malaise in this industry where any deskjockey with a word processor can inflict cheaply and rapidly some half-brained procedure on the great unwashed without a clue as to the eventual effect on aircraft ops. Witness CDG with what may be the world record in the number of different approaches and departures, off effectively 2 east-west facing runways???!!!
As long as the IATAs or ICAOs of this world permit that sort of megalomania to persist, then we'll have to carry on shouting NO!!! at the tops of our voices.
Come on ATC senior management, take this one on the chin, admit you've got it wrong and try to employ fact, logic and reasoning when it comes to ATIS content and delivery???
There is now a plethora of info bytes which we drivers have to sift through and filter to get to what is really needed.
There appear to be no visual approaches available at Gatport Airwick, unless it's 0400 local and the main rwy is closed for lens polishing or rabbit shooting or whatever.
Then we're doing what we were never trained for-straight in approaches, at night, post 5-8 hours back from somewhere hot 'n smelly and thanks to the modern kit and a bit of anticipation, we can con our Boings or 'Buses into doing the difficult bit.
The "expect an ILS approach" sentence is as superfluous as telling us they'd like us to vacate at "FR" in order to improve the runway's productivity thereby keeping the beancounters happy, but for some odd reason that's not included.
25 years of using that airport and I don't recall any serious reported incidents or accidents due to aircrew getting caught with their craft NOT set up for the ILS.
It's just representative of the creeping malaise in this industry where any deskjockey with a word processor can inflict cheaply and rapidly some half-brained procedure on the great unwashed without a clue as to the eventual effect on aircraft ops. Witness CDG with what may be the world record in the number of different approaches and departures, off effectively 2 east-west facing runways???!!!
As long as the IATAs or ICAOs of this world permit that sort of megalomania to persist, then we'll have to carry on shouting NO!!! at the tops of our voices.
Come on ATC senior management, take this one on the chin, admit you've got it wrong and try to employ fact, logic and reasoning when it comes to ATIS content and delivery???
Thread Starter
Some interesting points.
Spitoon:
Yeees, but you are being slightly mischievous to make your point. We ALWAYS need the latest weather, because the wind might have increased above our crosswind limit - we cannot assume it hasn't. We ALWAYS need the runway in use - we cannot assume it will be the one suggested by the wind - what if the wind is 90 degs off, or light and variable, or calm? Or what if it will be a circling approach to the opposite runway? We ALWAYS need the cloudbase and visibility in case it has gone below our minima - we can't assume it hasn't.
VLD1977:
Interesting post. The problem is, by endlessly repeating things which are valid 90% of the time reduces airtime for other information which cannot be assumed and needs to be known. Your brain surgeon would not need to be reminded to scrub up before every operation would they? I take your point about a lack of confirmation not being confirmation, but as I say, I am asking about the ATIS, not the controllers' responses.
Another example from ATIS, (although I don't think I've heard it in the UK): 'dew point minus zero'. Why say 'minus'??? To me that seems like just wasting airtime. 'Minus 1', yes, but 'minus zero'??? You might respond by saying 'oh come on it doesn't take long to say 'minus', what's the problem?' But when you add up all the little things like this, it starts to get a little cumbersome.
Also RTFQ; Remember, I'm not talking about the controllers confirming that it will be an ILS approach when we speak to them, I'm talking about that information not needing be on the ATIS, UNLESS the approach is uncommon, for example an NDB, or if the Ops vehicle has just driven into the G/S aerial and so the approach is now LOC only. That sort of information we DO need on ATIS.
BarkingMad.
Thanks for your support. I thought I was going mad there myself for a while !
U
Spitoon:
Yeees, but you are being slightly mischievous to make your point. We ALWAYS need the latest weather, because the wind might have increased above our crosswind limit - we cannot assume it hasn't. We ALWAYS need the runway in use - we cannot assume it will be the one suggested by the wind - what if the wind is 90 degs off, or light and variable, or calm? Or what if it will be a circling approach to the opposite runway? We ALWAYS need the cloudbase and visibility in case it has gone below our minima - we can't assume it hasn't.
VLD1977:
Interesting post. The problem is, by endlessly repeating things which are valid 90% of the time reduces airtime for other information which cannot be assumed and needs to be known. Your brain surgeon would not need to be reminded to scrub up before every operation would they? I take your point about a lack of confirmation not being confirmation, but as I say, I am asking about the ATIS, not the controllers' responses.
Another example from ATIS, (although I don't think I've heard it in the UK): 'dew point minus zero'. Why say 'minus'??? To me that seems like just wasting airtime. 'Minus 1', yes, but 'minus zero'??? You might respond by saying 'oh come on it doesn't take long to say 'minus', what's the problem?' But when you add up all the little things like this, it starts to get a little cumbersome.
Also RTFQ; Remember, I'm not talking about the controllers confirming that it will be an ILS approach when we speak to them, I'm talking about that information not needing be on the ATIS, UNLESS the approach is uncommon, for example an NDB, or if the Ops vehicle has just driven into the G/S aerial and so the approach is now LOC only. That sort of information we DO need on ATIS.
BarkingMad.
Thanks for your support. I thought I was going mad there myself for a while !
U
Last edited by Uplinker; 2nd Sep 2012 at 01:27.
Why do you always need to know the wind? We'll put it on the ATIS if it exceeds a certain amount. Light and variable? We'll be using the default runway so expect that. Why aren't you complaining about CAVOK as well? That's of no use to you either. We'll let you know when it's getting low.
It's a generic procedure to cater for all aerodromes and almost certainly because someone screwed the pooch big time in the past.
Why do you have checklists for tasks you perform every time you fly? Surely that's wasting time. Why do we demand readbacks that take up a lot more valuable air time than the approach expectation on the ATIS?
It's a generic procedure to cater for all aerodromes and almost certainly because someone screwed the pooch big time in the past.
Why do you have checklists for tasks you perform every time you fly? Surely that's wasting time. Why do we demand readbacks that take up a lot more valuable air time than the approach expectation on the ATIS?
Thread Starter
Thank you fujji, well spotted. To paraphrase Eric Morecambe: I wrote down all the right letters, but not necessarily in the right order !
Corrected now.
U
Corrected now.
U