Opinions of atcos on best thing to do here
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opinions of atcos on best thing to do here
Hi guys, wonder if you can give me a bit advse regarding a recent vfr flight in europe.
Approaching airfield after a vfr cross country flight, airfield is controlled and within class c airspace. I am cleared to a vrp which is situated roughly on long final for the active runway, by use of the phrase "proceed initally to xxxx report over". As I'm approaching the point I can see and hear that the circuit is rather busy (4 or so fixed wing on left hand ccts and 2 rotary on right hand). Once overhead I report to the controller. No reply and he starts issuing circuit traffic with further instructions. At this point I can't get a word in, I have the circuit and final approach to the north, I am visual with 1 rotary traffic on downwind and one fixed wing about to turn base. I have a working area with training traffic to my west, and with no further clearance and no chance to ask, I begin to make an orbit to avoid penetrating the training area. At this point the controller who is talking to the circuit traffic informs the aircraft now on base that he is number 2 to myself leaving the vrp to join final, and then berates me for not continuing my approach and for orbiting without informing him.
What would have been a preferred option? Up until this point I had not been informed of any sequencing, continuing my approach would have conflicted with circuit traffic, continuing my track through passed the vrp would have involved me stumbling into a training area.
Should I have proceeded straight from vrp to final, despite being cleared "initially" to the vrp with no further clearance.
Thanks for any opinions.
Approaching airfield after a vfr cross country flight, airfield is controlled and within class c airspace. I am cleared to a vrp which is situated roughly on long final for the active runway, by use of the phrase "proceed initally to xxxx report over". As I'm approaching the point I can see and hear that the circuit is rather busy (4 or so fixed wing on left hand ccts and 2 rotary on right hand). Once overhead I report to the controller. No reply and he starts issuing circuit traffic with further instructions. At this point I can't get a word in, I have the circuit and final approach to the north, I am visual with 1 rotary traffic on downwind and one fixed wing about to turn base. I have a working area with training traffic to my west, and with no further clearance and no chance to ask, I begin to make an orbit to avoid penetrating the training area. At this point the controller who is talking to the circuit traffic informs the aircraft now on base that he is number 2 to myself leaving the vrp to join final, and then berates me for not continuing my approach and for orbiting without informing him.
What would have been a preferred option? Up until this point I had not been informed of any sequencing, continuing my approach would have conflicted with circuit traffic, continuing my track through passed the vrp would have involved me stumbling into a training area.
Should I have proceeded straight from vrp to final, despite being cleared "initially" to the vrp with no further clearance.
Thanks for any opinions.
Last edited by XiRho; 14th Aug 2012 at 23:47.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"proceed initially to xxx report over"
If this is what was actually said, it is pretty poor phraseology. "Track to xxx and report at xxx" is more appropriate. As you were not instructed to hold at xxx or given a clearance limit of xxx you could continue with your approach. Although ATC may not have answered your report due to workload, he probably had a plan based on what he expected and the orbit caught him out.
If this is what was actually said, it is pretty poor phraseology. "Track to xxx and report at xxx" is more appropriate. As you were not instructed to hold at xxx or given a clearance limit of xxx you could continue with your approach. Although ATC may not have answered your report due to workload, he probably had a plan based on what he expected and the orbit caught him out.
A better phraseology would have been "join long final via xxx". If he wanted you to remain outside the circuit he should say "cleared to xxx", then that is your clearance limit.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a pilot perspective,
I disagree slightly with fujii on this one (presumably ATCO?)..
First I don't have any problems with the phraseology on this one. To me it's pretty clear. My understanding is I can proceed to the VRP… but I need further instructions before doing something else. I can always try to second guess the ATCOs plans, and guess I am no. 1. But what if he simply forgot about me? Seen it happen many times in busy circuits. I would've done like the OP, orbited most likely. Another alternative which in hindsight might be a better option would be to continue on final while staying above pattern altitude. Gives the controllers a few more seconds to get back to you while you are not conflicting with the pattern traffic. Bugsmashers rarely have any problems loosing altitude quickly if need be.
As for the berating, think it was unfair. If he/she wants to play that game I would probably bite back with a quick "next time I need further instructions before reaching the VRP". Also gives them some feedback on why it happened and there was no ill intentions involved.
I have over three years instructing in SoCal area and some very busy airfields. I have seen ATCOs loosing control of the pattern.. They were actually doing a pretty good job but there was simply too many of us in the pattern, transiting, approaching, calling for dep etc. that you had to take control of your own situation and make what was reasonable for the time being. I think your orbit was such as case. Good job on that! Last thing you want to have is an airprox on final.
I disagree slightly with fujii on this one (presumably ATCO?)..
First I don't have any problems with the phraseology on this one. To me it's pretty clear. My understanding is I can proceed to the VRP… but I need further instructions before doing something else. I can always try to second guess the ATCOs plans, and guess I am no. 1. But what if he simply forgot about me? Seen it happen many times in busy circuits. I would've done like the OP, orbited most likely. Another alternative which in hindsight might be a better option would be to continue on final while staying above pattern altitude. Gives the controllers a few more seconds to get back to you while you are not conflicting with the pattern traffic. Bugsmashers rarely have any problems loosing altitude quickly if need be.
As for the berating, think it was unfair. If he/she wants to play that game I would probably bite back with a quick "next time I need further instructions before reaching the VRP". Also gives them some feedback on why it happened and there was no ill intentions involved.
I have over three years instructing in SoCal area and some very busy airfields. I have seen ATCOs loosing control of the pattern.. They were actually doing a pretty good job but there was simply too many of us in the pattern, transiting, approaching, calling for dep etc. that you had to take control of your own situation and make what was reasonable for the time being. I think your orbit was such as case. Good job on that! Last thing you want to have is an airprox on final.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phraseology is poor.
Many years ago, I was told to issue a clearance in the format....
Cleared - From...To...Via....At....
I believe, (in The U.K.), it is still a requirement to report position on reaching the limit of ATC clearance.
Many years ago, I was told to issue a clearance in the format....
Cleared - From...To...Via....At....
I believe, (in The U.K.), it is still a requirement to report position on reaching the limit of ATC clearance.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the opinions guys.
I agree the phraseology isn't the best, but it isn't uncommon to hear here.
Fuji, I could have assumed that I was to be cleared to join final upon reaching, but with other aircraft in the circuit close to turning final I didn't want to go ploughing in hoping for the best. Had I have heard a clue to this (such as circuit traffic being told they are number 2 to an aircraft joining via xxx) then I believe I would have continued the approach but I didn't believe it was my best option.
Would this be a common thing to give aircraft instructions like in this case, like should I in future ASSUME that I am to continue my approach?
Thanks,
XiRho
I agree the phraseology isn't the best, but it isn't uncommon to hear here.
Fuji, I could have assumed that I was to be cleared to join final upon reaching, but with other aircraft in the circuit close to turning final I didn't want to go ploughing in hoping for the best. Had I have heard a clue to this (such as circuit traffic being told they are number 2 to an aircraft joining via xxx) then I believe I would have continued the approach but I didn't believe it was my best option.
Would this be a common thing to give aircraft instructions like in this case, like should I in future ASSUME that I am to continue my approach?
Thanks,
XiRho
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a pilot's perspective, can only say that your orbit seemed exactly the right thing to do. If the ATCO wants you to do something, it's his responsibility in this situation to make it clear.
Your orbit reduced risk out of the situation....
Clearly the ATCO was right on the limit of how much traffic he could cope with, for which one must have sympathy, and you were helping him out I would suggest. The only bad that came out of it was a resequenced finals.
IF you had an aircraft behind you steaming in to your position, you probably would have heard him on freq doing so and he, in turn, may have had to make a similar decision to you knowing you were there, short of any further information from the ATCO.
ATC informing you of your sequence number seems at times like a nice extra piece of information, but at times like this it's crucial decision-making data and should help re-inforce in ATCO's mind what his plan is by stating it.
I know there's some controversy on this, but it's a shame that entry point/circuit orbits are not routinely taught in the PPL unless you fly from a busy airport. The thing is you'll end up having to do one at some point and it should be unthinkingly part of your toolbox of options rather than just ploughing on into an unknown/unclear situation (you mentioned you only had about 15-20% of traffic visual, right?!?)
Any thoughts from ATCO's on my take?
Your orbit reduced risk out of the situation....
Clearly the ATCO was right on the limit of how much traffic he could cope with, for which one must have sympathy, and you were helping him out I would suggest. The only bad that came out of it was a resequenced finals.
IF you had an aircraft behind you steaming in to your position, you probably would have heard him on freq doing so and he, in turn, may have had to make a similar decision to you knowing you were there, short of any further information from the ATCO.
ATC informing you of your sequence number seems at times like a nice extra piece of information, but at times like this it's crucial decision-making data and should help re-inforce in ATCO's mind what his plan is by stating it.
I know there's some controversy on this, but it's a shame that entry point/circuit orbits are not routinely taught in the PPL unless you fly from a busy airport. The thing is you'll end up having to do one at some point and it should be unthinkingly part of your toolbox of options rather than just ploughing on into an unknown/unclear situation (you mentioned you only had about 15-20% of traffic visual, right?!?)
Any thoughts from ATCO's on my take?
I'm a tower controller.
While the phraseology isn't perfect, it seems unambiguous, and is ok, and clear.
IMO, you absolutely did the correct thing in commencing a hold without an onward clearance. To continue toward the airfield without a clearance to do so would be at best ok in the circumstances, (though illegal), and at worst give you a face full of aeroplane.
For the controller to berate you for doing it is incorrect, and possibly an indication that he was under more pressure than normal. No excuse, though.
While the phraseology isn't perfect, it seems unambiguous, and is ok, and clear.
IMO, you absolutely did the correct thing in commencing a hold without an onward clearance. To continue toward the airfield without a clearance to do so would be at best ok in the circumstances, (though illegal), and at worst give you a face full of aeroplane.
For the controller to berate you for doing it is incorrect, and possibly an indication that he was under more pressure than normal. No excuse, though.
Last edited by Tarq57; 15th Aug 2012 at 23:51. Reason: typo
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You were put in the unfortunate position of trying to read the Controller's mind.
Even when I have gotten extremely busy, far busier than what you described, I would make sure to at least let you know where I wanted you next. Either an orbit or two over the vrp or something, but to let you hang there is just not right, with all due respect to fellow ATCOs.
Even when I have gotten extremely busy, far busier than what you described, I would make sure to at least let you know where I wanted you next. Either an orbit or two over the vrp or something, but to let you hang there is just not right, with all due respect to fellow ATCOs.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Hampshire
Age: 50
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly Im an ATCO (albeit an area bod in TC!) but also a PPL holder. As the latter I'd have done exactly the same as the OP and made an orbit until I could get a word in and clarify what the controller wanted me to do next. That, IMHO, is the safest thing to do in this situation.
Assumptions in ATC are going to be mostly incorrect. 2 scenarios are possible in here...1, the OP continues on after the named fix or 2, the OP orbits until further instructions. Its going to be the case that whatever choice he makes will be the wrong one in the controllers eyes. The issue here is that there was no positive instruction given to the pilot on what to do after reaching the fix. The controller was supposedly busy and did not give further instructions prior to the fix therefore choice no.2 will always default to being the safest one. Ploughing on regardless is never a good idea TBH.
For the controller to berate you was unacceptable!!! He should have given you instructions in a timely manner and, it could be argued, EXPECTED you to orbit. They had absolutely NO cause to give you a hard time. Haggling over the R/T is always a no-no but personally, I would have been sorely tempted to either phone the tower upon arrival or, if possible, arrange to visit the tower to talk the situation through with the ATCO putting your point across.
Spamcan
Assumptions in ATC are going to be mostly incorrect. 2 scenarios are possible in here...1, the OP continues on after the named fix or 2, the OP orbits until further instructions. Its going to be the case that whatever choice he makes will be the wrong one in the controllers eyes. The issue here is that there was no positive instruction given to the pilot on what to do after reaching the fix. The controller was supposedly busy and did not give further instructions prior to the fix therefore choice no.2 will always default to being the safest one. Ploughing on regardless is never a good idea TBH.
For the controller to berate you was unacceptable!!! He should have given you instructions in a timely manner and, it could be argued, EXPECTED you to orbit. They had absolutely NO cause to give you a hard time. Haggling over the R/T is always a no-no but personally, I would have been sorely tempted to either phone the tower upon arrival or, if possible, arrange to visit the tower to talk the situation through with the ATCO putting your point across.
Spamcan
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks everyone for your opinions.
Spamcan defender, I was going to ring the tower and ask for a chat, but I wasn't 100% sure whether I had in fact been totally wrong myself, which is why I wanted opinions on here. For sure if it happens again or anything similar I will be doing so.
I am glad that most people have been agreeing that it was the safest thing to do, as that was my aim.
Spamcan defender, I was going to ring the tower and ask for a chat, but I wasn't 100% sure whether I had in fact been totally wrong myself, which is why I wanted opinions on here. For sure if it happens again or anything similar I will be doing so.
I am glad that most people have been agreeing that it was the safest thing to do, as that was my aim.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: FZFG
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XiRho, you did the right thing.
As a tower controller myself, what I would expect you to do is to hold visual over the VRP, unless otherwise instructed.
Of course it would be much better to know what you need to do in advance (ie. orbit or join the circuit), but in case of frequency congestion, the only wise choice is to hold over the VRP, which given the phraseology used (whether standard RT or not, that's another matter) is by all means your clearance limit.
As a tower controller myself, what I would expect you to do is to hold visual over the VRP, unless otherwise instructed.
Of course it would be much better to know what you need to do in advance (ie. orbit or join the circuit), but in case of frequency congestion, the only wise choice is to hold over the VRP, which given the phraseology used (whether standard RT or not, that's another matter) is by all means your clearance limit.
