Requests from an approach/terminal controller
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Requests from an approach/terminal controller
Unfortunately this is probably not going to go over well but I must forge ahead. Things that drive us nuts (and I'm sure you have your list as well)
1. "What number are we?" Here's the thing, you can be number 2 and have quite a long downwind and a long final if you're following much slower traffic. You can also be number 6 and turn a normal final with nearly no speed control if the 5 ahead of you are on final, tightly spaced and you are still 15 miles from being abeam the runway. It's a question that we just don't understand as it really doesn't tell you very much. Ask rather: "how long a final can we expect?" Isn't that what you really want to know regardless of whether there's one or six ahead of you?
2. "Airport in sight if it helps" Strangely this is now standard phraseology. If it doesn't help me do you still have it in sight? How about simply "Airport in sight"
3. When we pass you traffic, even known traffic that we know is positively separated from you, it is because we are obligated to. Most common replies are: IMC, in cloud, looking, we're about to go into a layer but we'll be looking. etc.etc. Please, please the only required response is simply: "Roger". Also, if a few seconds later you spot the traffic, we don't need to know (unless of course the traffic was unknown).
4. "Turn left heading 270 to intercept the localizer, cleared ILS approach rwy 24" Reply: "We have the airport in sight." Please, just read back the ILS clearance, otherwise the approach controller is now having to issue you with two approach clearances which can take up valuable time when busy and trying to run a tight localizer.
Thanks for listening.
1. "What number are we?" Here's the thing, you can be number 2 and have quite a long downwind and a long final if you're following much slower traffic. You can also be number 6 and turn a normal final with nearly no speed control if the 5 ahead of you are on final, tightly spaced and you are still 15 miles from being abeam the runway. It's a question that we just don't understand as it really doesn't tell you very much. Ask rather: "how long a final can we expect?" Isn't that what you really want to know regardless of whether there's one or six ahead of you?
2. "Airport in sight if it helps" Strangely this is now standard phraseology. If it doesn't help me do you still have it in sight? How about simply "Airport in sight"
3. When we pass you traffic, even known traffic that we know is positively separated from you, it is because we are obligated to. Most common replies are: IMC, in cloud, looking, we're about to go into a layer but we'll be looking. etc.etc. Please, please the only required response is simply: "Roger". Also, if a few seconds later you spot the traffic, we don't need to know (unless of course the traffic was unknown).
4. "Turn left heading 270 to intercept the localizer, cleared ILS approach rwy 24" Reply: "We have the airport in sight." Please, just read back the ILS clearance, otherwise the approach controller is now having to issue you with two approach clearances which can take up valuable time when busy and trying to run a tight localizer.
Thanks for listening.
We all have our gripes it seems. Mine is when people say "request.....if available". Surely if its not available you're not going to get it anyway, right?
But it's a two way street. For example more than once I've been asked to fly an approach at "best speed" due to faster following traffic, then been told to G/A as we've caught up with the preceding traffic. That's a frustrating one.
Same when you request asymmetric training in CAVOK conditions and even offer to do it with no loss of speed, only to be told no.
But it's a two way street. For example more than once I've been asked to fly an approach at "best speed" due to faster following traffic, then been told to G/A as we've caught up with the preceding traffic. That's a frustrating one.
Same when you request asymmetric training in CAVOK conditions and even offer to do it with no loss of speed, only to be told no.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: That France
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An ex-Lighting Panel Operator at Heathrow can add this to the list
'Can we cross these reds?' or - even worse '<callsign> crossing reds at Alpha'
The answer from me, sotto voce, was always 'No you <insert the favourite phrase of an Athens taxi driver> well can't'. Happily, we were never given real microphones of our own, so that went unheard. However, that question prompted - probably still does - two reactions. The Ground Movement Controller twirls his head like an Exorcists dummy, trying to see if the reds were there deliberately or not. Because we weren't actually sitting down, the L/Op did the standy-uppy equivalent, accompanied in my case by an internal groan and thanks that salary wasn't deductible per bar.
Seriously, just <callsign at a red bar on Alpha > was enough. Now, I've been away from the Panel for 6 years ( like John Stalker might have said, 'a real improvement to aviation safety') so things might have changed, but the commercial pressures can't have improved, so I'm guessing it's still heard. Can any current GMC chaps weigh in?
'Can we cross these reds?' or - even worse '<callsign> crossing reds at Alpha'
The answer from me, sotto voce, was always 'No you <insert the favourite phrase of an Athens taxi driver> well can't'. Happily, we were never given real microphones of our own, so that went unheard. However, that question prompted - probably still does - two reactions. The Ground Movement Controller twirls his head like an Exorcists dummy, trying to see if the reds were there deliberately or not. Because we weren't actually sitting down, the L/Op did the standy-uppy equivalent, accompanied in my case by an internal groan and thanks that salary wasn't deductible per bar.
Seriously, just <callsign at a red bar on Alpha > was enough. Now, I've been away from the Panel for 6 years ( like John Stalker might have said, 'a real improvement to aviation safety') so things might have changed, but the commercial pressures can't have improved, so I'm guessing it's still heard. Can any current GMC chaps weigh in?
Last edited by Minesthechevy; 12th Jan 2013 at 16:51.
