BA pilot at it again at Dublin
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: UK
Some facts. Yes, facts.
1. The YouTube clip is heavily edited.
2. The amended clearance to the Stobart ATR was partially blocked, crucially their callsign was blocked. This IS captured in the YouTube clip, and was also confirmed by DUB duty ATC manager to the ATR Captain later that evening after the tapes had been reviewed in the ATC listening room.
3. Because the amended clearance to the ATR was blocked it was never acknowledged by the Stobart crew, and as such the initial "subject to RYR" remained their valid clearance.
4. The BA took 5 mins to commence pushback, by which time the Stobart was well underway.
All facts, all verified.
1. The YouTube clip is heavily edited.
2. The amended clearance to the Stobart ATR was partially blocked, crucially their callsign was blocked. This IS captured in the YouTube clip, and was also confirmed by DUB duty ATC manager to the ATR Captain later that evening after the tapes had been reviewed in the ATC listening room.
3. Because the amended clearance to the ATR was blocked it was never acknowledged by the Stobart crew, and as such the initial "subject to RYR" remained their valid clearance.
4. The BA took 5 mins to commence pushback, by which time the Stobart was well underway.
All facts, all verified.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,687
Likes: 2,030
From: Reading, UK
Are you also able to verify how much time elapsed between the BA being conditionally cleared for pushback, subject to the Ryanair having passed behind, and the RYR actually entering its stand?
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 276
Likes: 1
From: T.C.
Yeah gods, who really cares, the controller made an error, the BA pilot was slow to push, the stobart pushed before he was meant to, as he got sick of waiting for the BA. The controller tried unsuccessfully to rectify the error, the BA pilot got stroppy.
Basically this sort of thing happens at busy airports, most ATCO's just live with it and don't feel the need to post on u tube, pprune, facebook or whatever. Enough.
Basically this sort of thing happens at busy airports, most ATCO's just live with it and don't feel the need to post on u tube, pprune, facebook or whatever. Enough.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,687
Likes: 2,030
From: Reading, UK
the stobart pushed before he was meant to, as he got sick of waiting for the BA.
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 729
Likes: 1
From: Zulu Time Zone
alwaysmovin
Okay seeing as you ask. My timings are from atc.net. For clarity here is the timeline:
1503:50 Ryanair 737 cleared to stand 125, cross 34, M1, Link 4.
1504:20 BA push back approved when the Ryanair clear
1505:20 Call from ATC placing the Ryanair in vicinity of Link 4
1506:20 ATR push back approved when the Ryanair on stand
1507:50 Clipped tx from ATC "ATR pushing back behind you to point B"
1508:20 The call from BA advising that push back stopped by gnd crew
So, it was 3:30mins already after approval the BA had still not moved - or possibly just barely begun to move. That's where I got "it took BA the best part of 4 minutes to get moving". Obviously the BA could not move until the Ryanair was past. But at the very least the BA was slow enough for the Ryanair to get parked after passing the BA and the ATR to then move from its stand to "behind" the BA. That is not to justify the ATR jumping the qeue. It may be that BA's proximity to stand 125 was such that they too effectively had to wait until Ryanair was actually on the stand. I don't know.
Not necessarily. The controller said to the ATR "Ryanair 737 to park on stand 125 behind you". We don't know where the Ryanair was at that point - only that it was not yet parked on stand. But the Ryanair was quite possibly past the ATR because this was 1 minute after the controller made a call to Stobart 26M placing the Ryanair at Link 4. So it seems likely the Ryanair was past the ATR, possibly even past the BA, but not yet on stand when the ATR got their approval.
All of this leaves 2 possibilities:
Either the Ryanair was on the stand (likely) and BA still hadn't moved so the ATR jumped the qeue and pushed back before BA. Or, the ATR started to push back before the Ryanair was even on the stand (unlikely). What is clear is the controller did not approve the ATR to move behind the BA and simply neglect to inform them, which is the complaint the BA made.
Anyway, I think nimmer has it:
...so yes, that's enough for me.
Edited to say having just seen diver69's post:
Sure that makes sense. The end.
So where do you get the 4 mins from?
1503:50 Ryanair 737 cleared to stand 125, cross 34, M1, Link 4.
1504:20 BA push back approved when the Ryanair clear
1505:20 Call from ATC placing the Ryanair in vicinity of Link 4
1506:20 ATR push back approved when the Ryanair on stand
1507:50 Clipped tx from ATC "ATR pushing back behind you to point B"
1508:20 The call from BA advising that push back stopped by gnd crew
So, it was 3:30mins already after approval the BA had still not moved - or possibly just barely begun to move. That's where I got "it took BA the best part of 4 minutes to get moving". Obviously the BA could not move until the Ryanair was past. But at the very least the BA was slow enough for the Ryanair to get parked after passing the BA and the ATR to then move from its stand to "behind" the BA. That is not to justify the ATR jumping the qeue. It may be that BA's proximity to stand 125 was such that they too effectively had to wait until Ryanair was actually on the stand. I don't know.
So the Ryanair had at that time [when the ATR got conditional approval] not yet passed the Stobart or the BAW who would have been after the RYR ( traffic was passing right to left behind and the BA was to the left of the Stobart)
All of this leaves 2 possibilities:
Either the Ryanair was on the stand (likely) and BA still hadn't moved so the ATR jumped the qeue and pushed back before BA. Or, the ATR started to push back before the Ryanair was even on the stand (unlikely). What is clear is the controller did not approve the ATR to move behind the BA and simply neglect to inform them, which is the complaint the BA made.
Anyway, I think nimmer has it:
Basically this sort of thing happens at busy airports, most ATCO's just live with it and don't feel the need to post on u tube, pprune, facebook or whatever. Enough.
Edited to say having just seen diver69's post:
3. Because the amended clearance to the ATR was blocked it was never acknowledged by the Stobart crew, and as such the initial "subject to RYR" remained their valid clearance.
Last edited by oggers; 23rd June 2016 at 07:04.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,687
Likes: 2,030
From: Reading, UK
This is getting increasingly surreal.
That's not clear at all. In fact, the ATC transcript (per LiveATC) is entirely consistent with the controller having done exactly that.
If you are suggesting that the transmission you quoted at 15:07:50 was the controller informing the BA that the adjacent Lingus ATR was also about to push, you are mistaken:
What the controller actually said was: "Aer Lingus ATR about to push back behind you to Point B, when they're clear your push and start approved to Point R".
But this was addressed to RYR7316 (requesting push from of the 12x stands) and duly acknowledged, not to the BA on the 200s (which in any case was cleared to Charlie, not Romeo).
So, based on the transcripts so far available, there is no evidence that the controller warned the BA that the ATR on an adjacent stand had also been cleared to push.
Exactly.
If you are suggesting that the transmission you quoted at 15:07:50 was the controller informing the BA that the adjacent Lingus ATR was also about to push, you are mistaken:
What the controller actually said was: "Aer Lingus ATR about to push back behind you to Point B, when they're clear your push and start approved to Point R".
But this was addressed to RYR7316 (requesting push from of the 12x stands) and duly acknowledged, not to the BA on the 200s (which in any case was cleared to Charlie, not Romeo).
So, based on the transcripts so far available, there is no evidence that the controller warned the BA that the ATR on an adjacent stand had also been cleared to push.
Exactly.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,003
Likes: 0
From: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
It never, ever, bothered me that enthusiasts were listening in to what I did at work, because that's how I became interested in ATC.
I miss the job, the mental mechanics of doing the job, being involved in aviation, the wonderful people I had the privilege of working with......Even the bizarre stuff that came from 'management'.
But when I read !!!!! like this, spread over 4 or 5 separate web-sites, I'm very glad I got out when I did.
Move along folks......Nothing to see here.
I miss the job, the mental mechanics of doing the job, being involved in aviation, the wonderful people I had the privilege of working with......Even the bizarre stuff that came from 'management'.
But when I read !!!!! like this, spread over 4 or 5 separate web-sites, I'm very glad I got out when I did.
Move along folks......Nothing to see here.
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 729
Likes: 1
From: Zulu Time Zone
DaveReidUK
That's not clear at all. In fact, the ATC transcript (per LiveATC) is entirely consistent with the controller having done exactly that.
Is that you Speedbird 81D?
I've already made my point and I don't wish to labour it. But I'm happy to correct you. So:
Perhaps review the tape again before drawing this out any further. The transmission I quoted is not the one you think. It occured at the time I quoted +/- a couple of seconds. The one you quoted occured a minute before. Worth noting it was another one the BA crew didn't hear, if as they claim, the first they knew about the ATR was when the tug alerted them. Let's just sum those up:
1506:20 When the ATR got their approval
1506:40 When Ryanair 7316 got their approval conditional on the ATR
1507:50 When ATC transmitted "[clipped]ATR pushing back behind you to point B"
So:
Based on the transcripts available the call was there. Based on what you heard, it wasn't. Same problem as at Dublin 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oggers View Post
What is clear is the controller did not approve the ATR to move behind the BA and simply neglect to inform them, which is the complaint the BA made.
Originally Posted by oggers View Post
What is clear is the controller did not approve the ATR to move behind the BA and simply neglect to inform them, which is the complaint the BA made.
Is that you Speedbird 81D?
This is getting increasingly surreal.
If you are suggesting that the transmission you quoted at 15:07:50 was the controller informing the BA that the adjacent Lingus ATR was also about to push, you are mistaken:
What the controller actually said was: "Aer Lingus ATR about to push back behind you to Point B, when they're clear your push and start approved to Point R".
Quote:
Originally Posted by oggers View Post
1507:50 Clipped tx from ATC "ATR pushing back behind you to point B"
Originally Posted by oggers View Post
1507:50 Clipped tx from ATC "ATR pushing back behind you to point B"
1506:20 When the ATR got their approval
1506:40 When Ryanair 7316 got their approval conditional on the ATR
1507:50 When ATC transmitted "[clipped]ATR pushing back behind you to point B"
So:
So, based on the transcripts so far available, there is no evidence that the controller warned the BA that the ATR on an adjacent stand had also been cleared to push.
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 393
Likes: 94
From: UK
What I don't like is that one of our fellow professionals is under high pressure/stress and then it is increased markedly by the spat on the radio - that is the safety issue here not that the push back team had to do their job (no brainer - don't push the aeroplane back into the one behind) !!
Seriously minor issue which could have been dealt with off air.
Seriously minor issue which could have been dealt with off air.
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,456
Likes: 1
From: Ireland
Ahh PPRuNe, the place where you can make up things and call them facts.
How about you listen tk EIDW frequency some day, and see how long you hear a single frequency without being crossed over.
And I'd like you to verify these "facts". By stating many times that they are facts, doesnt make them facts, it makes it indoctrination.
How about you listen tk EIDW frequency some day, and see how long you hear a single frequency without being crossed over.
And I'd like you to verify these "facts". By stating many times that they are facts, doesnt make them facts, it makes it indoctrination.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: UK
1. The YouTube clip is heavily edited.
2. The amended clearance to the Stobart ATR was partially blocked, crucially their callsign was blocked. This IS captured in the YouTube clip, and was also confirmed by DUB duty ATC manager to the ATR Captain later that evening after the tapes had been reviewed in the ATC listening room.
3. Because the amended clearance to the ATR was blocked it was never acknowledged by the Stobart crew, and as such the initial "subject to RYR" remained their valid clearance.
4. The BA took 5 mins to commence pushback, by which time the Stobart was well underway.
2. The amended clearance to the Stobart ATR was partially blocked, crucially their callsign was blocked. This IS captured in the YouTube clip, and was also confirmed by DUB duty ATC manager to the ATR Captain later that evening after the tapes had been reviewed in the ATC listening room.
3. Because the amended clearance to the ATR was blocked it was never acknowledged by the Stobart crew, and as such the initial "subject to RYR" remained their valid clearance.
4. The BA took 5 mins to commence pushback, by which time the Stobart was well underway.
In this regard, given that the conversation took place after the ATC Manager had time to review the tapes I offer it as fact.
If you elect to believe that no such conversation took place, or that the details of the conversation are falsified then that is your prerogative.
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,456
Likes: 1
From: Ireland
There is no basis for the video being heavily edited without the offering of the actual recording from Liveatc.net
From my experience, channels cross over eachother constantly, and its quite rare you even get as much as we have just heard in that video. Its quite likely this manager has no experience with the Dublin feed on Liveatc.net
From my experience, channels cross over eachother constantly, and its quite rare you even get as much as we have just heard in that video. Its quite likely this manager has no experience with the Dublin feed on Liveatc.net
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: UK
AerRyan, an entire conversation after things 'Kicked off", yet before handover to TWR between the Stobart and DUB GND, in which the Stobart made it clear that their pushback was subject to a RYR, with no mention of a BA, was not contained in the YouTube clip.
To be fair, this may not intentionally have been 'edited', it may just not as you say have been captured by the Liveatc.net clip. If this is the case then I apologise for using the term 'edited', if this implies deliberate editing by whoever created the Youtube clip. But an entire conversation is missing, hence I consider the clip an edited version of actual ATC recordings.
The omission is unfortunate, as the exchange makes it clear the Stobart did not 'cause' the situation as has been suggested on this and other sites.
To be fair, this may not intentionally have been 'edited', it may just not as you say have been captured by the Liveatc.net clip. If this is the case then I apologise for using the term 'edited', if this implies deliberate editing by whoever created the Youtube clip. But an entire conversation is missing, hence I consider the clip an edited version of actual ATC recordings.
The omission is unfortunate, as the exchange makes it clear the Stobart did not 'cause' the situation as has been suggested on this and other sites.
Last edited by diver69; 23rd June 2016 at 12:53.
