Questions for UK controllers
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 8
Likes: 1
From: UK
Questions for UK controllers
Please could someone clarify the following for me ? I work in the simulator and am conscious to use correct R/T. I've checked CAP 413 but would like to clarify :
If you are vectoring an A/C for a NDB/VOR /GNSS approach is the correct R/T from ATC :
" C/S report established on the final approach track "
If an A/C declares a Mayday or Pan , is the correct ATC reply " C/S ... TWR..roger mayday "
and you then standby for the A/C to contact you with further instructions ?"
Does the A/C C/S then become " MAYDAY C/S " or " PAN C/S " automatically ?
Thanks very much.
If you are vectoring an A/C for a NDB/VOR /GNSS approach is the correct R/T from ATC :
" C/S report established on the final approach track "
If an A/C declares a Mayday or Pan , is the correct ATC reply " C/S ... TWR..roger mayday "
and you then standby for the A/C to contact you with further instructions ?"
Does the A/C C/S then become " MAYDAY C/S " or " PAN C/S " automatically ?
Thanks very much.
Last edited by Mr Falcon; 20th December 2012 at 12:21. Reason: spelling error
Guest
Posts: n/a
I haven't been operational for a good few years but I don't think these things have changed much.
For the non-precision approach one, I don't think there's anything laid down but that's what I always did. I suspect there's nothing written down because, technically, I don't think it's supposed to happen - in the world of rules, aircraft are supposed to follow the procedure from whatever fix is specified.
As for the mayday, again, the real world and the rules rarely coincide. Often the first call gave the bones of the problem and I reacted accordingly - I'd acknowledge it but if I didn't need to ask any questions at that moment I waited until the initial rush of stuff to be done (both in the air and on the ground sometimes) is finished. RTF calls - if there was no need to prefix the callsign I usually wouldn't but if another aircraft joined the frequency I'd either prefix the next call to the emergency or give the other a "Standby, emergency in progress".
For the non-precision approach one, I don't think there's anything laid down but that's what I always did. I suspect there's nothing written down because, technically, I don't think it's supposed to happen - in the world of rules, aircraft are supposed to follow the procedure from whatever fix is specified.
As for the mayday, again, the real world and the rules rarely coincide. Often the first call gave the bones of the problem and I reacted accordingly - I'd acknowledge it but if I didn't need to ask any questions at that moment I waited until the initial rush of stuff to be done (both in the air and on the ground sometimes) is finished. RTF calls - if there was no need to prefix the callsign I usually wouldn't but if another aircraft joined the frequency I'd either prefix the next call to the emergency or give the other a "Standby, emergency in progress".
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 5
From: South of England
technically, I don't think it's supposed to happen - in the world of rules, aircraft are supposed to follow the procedure from whatever fix is specified.
2 s
Guest
Posts: n/a
I stand corrected by 2 sheds - thanks. Don't remember that stuff in MATS 1 in my day - either put in since I last read it closely or, more likely, I've forgotten it all!
I recall some IAP designers that I had dealings with that the only thing that ATC should do is vector an aircraft to the IAF, after which it was up to the pilot to fly the approach. Vectors to the FAT, particularly at a level below that of the IAF, was a definite no-no. My claims that in the real world this just didn't happen fell on deaf ears or were met with "tut-tuts".
As for the phraseology, dagowly is probably spot on with what the book says. Again, I was trying to give a real world answer.
I recall some IAP designers that I had dealings with that the only thing that ATC should do is vector an aircraft to the IAF, after which it was up to the pilot to fly the approach. Vectors to the FAT, particularly at a level below that of the IAF, was a definite no-no. My claims that in the real world this just didn't happen fell on deaf ears or were met with "tut-tuts".
As for the phraseology, dagowly is probably spot on with what the book says. Again, I was trying to give a real world answer.
