ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.

Annoying habits

Old 29th Sep 2019, 17:38
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Near VTUU or EGPX
Age: 60
Posts: 272
Originally Posted by Tom! View Post
Guilty as charged
SAB direct EDI 24 instead of routing via AGPED.

Do appreciate the service and coordination it requires as it saves a lot of time for us (provided no glider activity as then I always stick to CAS NATEB/AGPED/HAVEN)
The "Direct SAB, direct EDI 24" takes you though a sector that would not work you at all if you flew UMBEL/ROBEM-NATEB-AGPED, so requires a bit of co-ordination.

Also, it's not gliders you need to worry about, it's pointy grey things spewing fire out of the back, Falcon 20's, A330 Tankers and anyone playing games in and around Spadeadam EWTR.

Last edited by The Fat Controller; 29th Sep 2019 at 18:01.
The Fat Controller is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2019, 18:31
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Age: 41
Posts: 121
Originally Posted by Tom! View Post
Guilty as charged
SAB direct EDI 24 instead of routing via AGPED.

Do appreciate the service and coordination it requires as it saves a lot of time for us (provided no glider activity as then I always stick to CAS NATEB/AGPED/HAVEN)
The other issue here is that the CAA in their wisdom have approved non transponding gliders all the way up to 195. We simply can’t see them if they are orbiting as the radar filters them out thinking it is weather due to the low ground speed.
This route has also been removed from the available routes to file. It has been a contributory factor in sector overloads in the TMA. From an ATC perspective the best thing the airlines who want to fly this way could do is put pressure on the powers that be to get suitable controlled airspace in there.
It is only a matter of time before one of you has a very close one,or worse,out there. I don’t say that lightly.
rolaaand is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2019, 19:50
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Right here...
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by double_barrel View Post
What response would you prefer ? Silence? Or a super brief 'stby' without a callsign ? - I guess that's what I do.
From Annex 10;


Just wait and I will call you back. CEJM nailed it.
SThor is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2019, 10:46
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Luton
Posts: 386
"The other issue here is that the CAA in their wisdom have approved non transponding gliders all the way up to 195. We simply can’t see them if they are orbiting as the radar filters them out thinking it is weather due to the low ground speed."
1. At those levels they are unlikely to be orbiting (as in thermalling), more probably in wave where their airspeed almost matches the windspeed so are almost stationary.

2. Even those gliders that are transponder equipped are probably breaking the law if they use them. Class 2 transponders (130 W) are approved for use up to only FL150 - above that Class 1 transponders (250 W) are required. I doubt that many/any UK gliders have Class 1 transponders due to battery limitations.

3. The non-transponding gliders above FL100 are only present in "notified Non-SSR Transponder Glider Areas" day VFR. When areas are not notified then non-transponding gliders will not be there. Notification by NOTAM is typically >18 hours in advance.

4. The emotive wording "the CAA in their wisdom" does not reflect the reality that the previous freedom to fly without transponders in Class G airspace has been progressively removed and that above FL100 is now possible in clearly defined areas and the further restriction of prior notification has been imposed only in the last couple of years.

5. Current CAA policy seems to be that gliders will soon need transponders below FL100 in most circumstances.
Jim59 is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2019, 13:15
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Age: 41
Posts: 121
Originally Posted by Jim59 View Post
1. At those levels they are unlikely to be orbiting (as in thermalling), more probably in wave where their airspeed almost matches the windspeed so are almost stationary.

2. Even those gliders that are transponder equipped are probably breaking the law if they use them. Class 2 transponders (130 W) are approved for use up to only FL150 - above that Class 1 transponders (250 W) are required. I doubt that many/any UK gliders have Class 1 transponders due to battery limitations.

3. The non-transponding gliders above FL100 are only present in "notified Non-SSR Transponder Glider Areas" day VFR. When areas are not notified then non-transponding gliders will not be there. Notification by NOTAM is typically >18 hours in advance.

4. The emotive wording "the CAA in their wisdom" does not reflect the reality that the previous freedom to fly without transponders in Class G airspace has been progressively removed and that above FL100 is now possible in clearly defined areas and the further restriction of prior notification has been imposed only in the last couple of years.

5. Current CAA policy seems to be that gliders will soon need transponders below FL100 in most circumstances.


Thanks for the info Jim. Well aware of the NOTAMs authorising this. I have no problems with the gliders being there at all, they are entitled to be. Transponders are always welcome and are a huge boost to safety. My issue is not with the gliders or their pilots.
My issues in that area are firstly quite a lot of traffic wants to route in and out of PH via SAB,especially arrivals for 24, some appropriate airspace would be nice. Secondly, as I’ve alluded to earlier,I suspect quite a lot of commercial pilots are unaware of their responsibilities under UKFIS and also that they immediately drop down my list of priorities if they choose to leave controlled airspace. Gliders are far from the only operators in that bit of airspace, the military play there a lot too. They tend to have transponders though.
rolaaand is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2019, 04:36
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 3
Asking for a slot ready message on GMC.
"Good news, slot has came forward, are you ready for push and start?"
"Oh, umm.... we just need to find a tug crew... we'll be about 10 minutes..."

This does not constitute 'ready'!
doit173 is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2019, 13:31
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Austria
Posts: 674
This is somewhat of a problem as well for flight crews. Most airports do not own enough push back tractors to have one wait at all the aircraft with a bad slot. It is fairly common to have a truck at the nose wheel at STD that will wait a little while only to disappear a few seconds after the crew has called in ready and the message has been sent. There are other slotless flights in need of a push as well after all.

So if the slot then happens to improve, the search for the next available tug begins.

This is not the crews or the controllers fault; it is rather a systemic issue. The only way out of this (besides buying a truckload of pushback trucks) would be to push all the slotted aircraft clear of their nose-in position into a self-maneuvering stand where they can sit until their slot comes up; what such a system would do to airport operations is up to anyone to guess.
Tu.114 is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2019, 17:33
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by Tu.114 View Post

This is not the crews or the controllers fault; it is rather a systemic issue. The only way out of this (besides buying a truckload of pushback trucks) would be to push all the slotted aircraft clear of their nose-in position into a self-maneuvering stand where they can sit until their slot comes up; what such a system would do to airport operations is up to anyone to guess.
Nose out gates
mike current is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2019, 21:17
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 805
Some years ago at Leeds Bradford I overheard an exchange between ATC and the crew of a Spanair A320. The latter had requested a ready message, even though the aircraft still had forward steps attached and baggage was still being loaded. These factors were obvious to ATC and the TWR controller refused to send the ready message, and pointed out to the Spanair crew that declaring readiness when evidently not ready defeated the object of sending such a message !
Mooncrest is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2019, 10:20
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out of a bag
Posts: 500
Originally Posted by Mooncrest View Post
Some years ago at Leeds Bradford I overheard an exchange between ATC and the crew of a Spanair A320. The latter had requested a ready message, even though the aircraft still had forward steps attached and baggage was still being loaded. These factors were obvious to ATC and the TWR controller refused to send the ready message, and pointed out to the Spanair crew that declaring readiness when evidently not ready defeated the object of sending such a message !
About as annoying as aircraft requesting push and start when they don't have a tug attached or airbridge removed... Particularly when they are on the stand next door, we also want push and start and they then delay us by 10 minutes. I may have mentioned this to ATC at the time.
Flying Wild is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2019, 20:55
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home
Posts: 74
1. ignoring speed instructions given many minutes and miles before any TOD, margins are tight these days. Min separation is 5nm and we might have you at 6nm, there is little room for error and a heading is pretty useless when that close.
2. issuing a descend NOW instruction, having it read back and then choosing to descend when you feel like it. The word 'NOW' is none standard RT but has become common practice as otherwise a descent instruction is replied with 'when ready'. I would have said WR if it was appropriate.
3. not listening on the freq when dialling in for the first time before transmitting.
4. not listening in general and when eventually found, denying you've ever been on the freq despite me issuing clearances you've complied with.
5. requesting descent/climb and when denied due traffic, stating you have it on TCAS...…………….erm!!

never a dull day in ATC, its a shame the days of chatter and a bit of banter are dying out due volumes of traffic.
BwatchGRUNT is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2019, 21:03
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home
Posts: 74
6. PAN PAN PAN - sick passenger but we will carry on for several hundred miiles yet. The PAN raises workload, heart rate and causes a distraction to train of thought.

London, ABC123 we have a medical situation on board that requires priority at our destination and then PAN PAN PAN, would be appreciated.

Save the heart stopping moment for the real PAN/MAYDAY.
BwatchGRUNT is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2019, 00:24
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: North
Posts: 12
[QUOTE=FZRA;10581318]What an interesting thread....and hopefully a chance to ask some honest questions that quite often crop up on the line.

- Re. speed control. How rapidly are you expecting us to decelerate? The aircraft I fly is USELESS at slowing down with any greater than 1500ft/min VS, even with max spoilers. Quite often the only way to decelerate is to "dive down" to the next assigned level then rely on the speed coming back once level. Or kill the VS to <500ft/min to get rid of energy, then increase the VS again. I presume that you see our actual IAS on Mode-S, as opposed to selected IAS?

Yes, at least at my airport unit, our Mode S shows actual IAS as well as groundspeed (which is handy for getting a feel for the upper winds)... and it feels like crews have stopped lying about their speed now, as it's displayed to us in real time!!! (The only 'selected' parameter normally displayed is Selected Flight Level (or altitude), which is both useful and reassuring).

Very interesting thread... presumably some pilots could start a similar one about us ATCOs and our annoying habits...? Over the years we've had some superb feedback regarding (often) fairly simple things, of which we were unaware, but which can make a big improvement in flight deck workload or SA.
flightcatcher is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2019, 11:52
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out of a bag
Posts: 500
Originally Posted by BwatchGRUNT View Post
2. issuing a descend NOW instruction, having it read back and then choosing to descend when you feel like it. The word 'NOW' is none standard RT but has become common practice as otherwise a descent instruction is replied with 'when ready'. I would have said WR if it was appropriate.
Can I just clarify regarding descent clearances? Often we are given a descent clearance "descend FLxxx" and it's way before our optimum descent point for a CDA. We'll often read back and add on "is that when ready?" 8 out of 10 times, the answer is yes. So, it would be useful if the "Now" or "When ready" could be appended to a clearance to avoid ambiguity and then cuts down on an additional RT response to our question.
Flying Wild is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2019, 11:55
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out of a bag
Posts: 500
Originally Posted by BwatchGRUNT View Post
6. PAN PAN PAN - sick passenger but we will carry on for several hundred miiles yet. The PAN raises workload, heart rate and causes a distraction to train of thought.

London, ABC123 we have a medical situation on board that requires priority at our destination and then PAN PAN PAN, would be appreciated.

Save the heart stopping moment for the real PAN/MAYDAY.
I've found it quite helpful to give London Info a call on Box 2 approaching the UK whilst still with Maastricht/Brest to pass info back to home base if medical assistance is required but it's not a matter of life or death.
Flying Wild is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2019, 10:19
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by Tu.114 View Post
This is somewhat of a problem as well for flight crews. Most airports do not own enough push back tractors to have one wait at all the aircraft with a bad slot. It is fairly common to have a truck at the nose wheel at STD that will wait a little while only to disappear a few seconds after the crew has called in ready and the message has been sent. There are other slotless flights in need of a push as well after all.

So if the slot then happens to improve, the search for the next available tug begins.

This is not the crews or the controllers fault; it is rather a systemic issue. The only way out of this (besides buying a truckload of pushback trucks) would be to push all the slotted aircraft clear of their nose-in position into a self-maneuvering stand where they can sit until their slot comes up; what such a system would do to airport operations is up to anyone to guess.
Yeah I notice this is a problem when there are only so many tugs to go around. I'm not sure how much the crews know about ready messages but we have the option so submit ready + 1 minute (16 mins till latest airborne) and ready +15 (30 mins till latest)... if you lose your push back crew, tell us and ask us to change it to a plus 15
doit173 is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2019, 11:36
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sarf England
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by Juggler25 View Post
<Rant>
  1. Ignoring speed instructions (happens way more frequently then it should).
  2. Lying about ignoring speed instructions. We have Mode S so can see what you're doing. If you can't make a descent restriction work with an assigned speed just tell me and I'll change the plan.
  3. Announcing on the RT that you're logged on to CPDLC. Doing so literally defeats the point of the system.
  4. Telling me that you've started descent.
</Rant>


This just about covers my bugbears, I'll also add...

5. Penny-pinching airlines that STILL haven't equipped their state-of-the-art jets with (or maybe it's just they haven't trained their pilots to use?) CPDLC. In some instances I can do double the controlling in half the time if everybody on frequency has it. Embrace it, Ryanair... it's the future!

LTP
LostThePicture is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2019, 12:30
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 72
Interesting thread this, some good points and tips.

I have a burning question for ATC, something that I have wondered for years....

When a pilot checks in with tower on approach, what is the correct call? I hear all sorts of calls..

“Tower, ABC with you fully established, 8 miles ILS 05”
”ABC ILS 6 miles”
”Tower ABC with you on the ILS”

Personally I use “Tower Hello ABC”

Could someone please let me know what the correct initial call to tower should be?
Golf--Lima--Papa is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2019, 13:34
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 257
GLP, a pilot myself but according to CAP413 Chapter 6, page 5 the correct call is: “Kennington Tower, Bigjet 347”

Thank you for asking this question as I have been doing it wrong for the last 20 years.
I have been using “Tower, ABC ILS26, 5 miles”, unless otherwise instructed. I will change that to align with Cap413.
CEJM is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2019, 13:37
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 552
Final Director: "ABC123 callsign only to tower XXX.XXX"

Initial Call to Tower:

"XXXX Tower, ABC123X a Whizzjet Max-9000 series with information Juliet with you established on the LLZ shortly descending on the glide 9.3 miles final runway 26L"

DEF456 goes around

Tower tersely: "ABC123X continue"

When a busy runway is well utilised there can be just a few seconds windows for some calls to be made - miss your window, miss your opportunity. Callsign only* really can help controllers to hit that window of opportunity when required. If they want more information than you've given they can easily ask at a more appropriate time.

*even smaller units don't appreciate a life-story when they would prefer to be giving the urgent avoiding action or missed approach instructions
Dan Dare is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.