Muppetry at Manch!!
 

From an aircrew perspective......
Got a digital ATIS printout inbound to MAN recently, it said
ARRIVAL RWY 23R.......
and after the weather report(irrelevant to this post)
RWY 23R ILS DME IS U/S...
Then, having set up our approach, (obviously not the ILS), we hear preceeding traffic being cleared an ILS approach.
Now, I hear you say, was'nt your digital ATIS out of date?
Nope, it was issued at 1320z, and printed at 1321z.
So, a rather rushed re-brief.
Two points.
1. Get your terminology right. The ILS was not unserviceable.The DME part of the ILS was u/s. (But at MAN, in fairness, Dme distances from the VOR are on the approach chart, thus satisfying the altitude cross-check)
2. What use is digital ATIS if it does'nt give you the approach type in use - the runway in use does not suffice for FMS equipped A/C - they require some time to programme the new approach.
These ambiguities were unnecessary.:rolleyes:

'Muppetry at Manch!!'........

Clearly an outstanding method of illiciting a measured and reasonable response.:ugh:

Maybe..............
 

Consider changing the title?

'Muppetry at Manch!!'........


Is a little harsh don't you think?

Spru!

Seems like a small slip by whoever looks after the ATIS rather than full blown muppetry...

I take it you mentioned it to the ground controller while taxiing in? Or clarified it with the Approach controller?

How do you cope with places like Schipol and their short notice runway changes...if reprogramming the FMS is such as chore? :E

A matter of interpretation perhaps. I don't read it as saying that the ILS is U/S but rather it is the DME associated with the ILS that is broke. A quick look in the AIP suggests that there is a a procedure that uses the MCT DME. If the ILS was U/S I would expect the ATSIS to say 23R ILS not available. If I correctly understand the situation that you faced it would have been more useful and correct to advise that DME I-NN is U/S - would this have helped? If so, get in touch with NATS Manch Ops Manager (if they still have one) and offer this snippet of useful information that may help the procedures to be improved - they have a safety management system that should ensure that it is incorporated into the procedures if it is less ambiguous and thus safer.

P.S. There is plenty of muppetry on the airborne side of the RTF too - throwing stones doesn't help and will come back and bite you.....ahh, is that three mixed metaphors in one postscript???

What approach DID you brief for then in the absence of any being stated on the ATIS? There are a selection available - did you take your best guess? :confused:

I thought that it was only a couple of button presses to re select the FMS - if it takes too much effort and thinking to do maybe you should have asked to be held while you sorted that out in order to prevent a rushed approach.

Spittoon - :ok:

louby

PEACOCK

I find your description of ATC professional very very inappropriate and insulting---Muppet is one of the worst thing to be called on Pprune---them's fightin' words brother:\---I agree you should change the title---take deep breaths ahhhh:)



LOOBYLOU MY SINCEREST APOLOGIES:O

Peacock,

I had to read your post a couple of times as well before I grasped the point you were trying to make, and I've got to agree with Spitoon: If I read that ATIS cold, I'd conclude that the DME was out but that the ILS (sans DME) was still on the air and usable.

Granted, it could have been stated more clearly ("DME I-NN U/S" as suggested perhaps?), but the lashing you provided seems a bit much.

Dave

PS Pug... I believe you're directing your ire at the wrong poster...

:ouch:

Thanks AV8boy
louby

The "AIR" ATSA has the responsibility of "checking" the content of the ATIS/DATIS. If he/she has been informed [by Tels......via the Tower Supervisor] that xyz is OOS....then that is what is broadcast.
If a piece of kit then becomes "Serviceable" and the AIR ATSA is not informed then [unfortunately] the "old" information is still transmitted.
If in doubt CHECK...with APC perhaps.
bb

I notice our original "muppeteer" has yet to respond.....Peacock1....hello...?

I wonder if it's what an ILS approach is called has something to do with it.At our UK unit we call it an ILS approach.However overseas I heard it called an ILS/DME .The R/T used there was ''Cleared ILS/DME approach''.Perhaps if they hear that phraseology used,then copy an ATIS that says RWY23R ILS DME is u/s,then they could misunderstand that the ILS ,and it's procedure was not available.(perhaps:confused:)

However we inform the aircraft on first contact what type of approach they can expect.If they had briefed for an alternative approach,then why not carry on with that,as long as the wx is within limits.

LOUBYLOU PLEASE SEE THE EDITS ABOVE I WAS READING YOUR POST WHILST TYPING MINES:O

PA:ugh:

Hey PA - no offence taken hon! :p

louby

Come on guys, let's not forget that pilots are perfect and never ever make mistakes!

Muppetry? Takes one to know one I say

1. What is a digital ATIS printout and how is it obtained?
2. Is the loss of the ILS DME such a big issue? For many years, ILS facilities had no associated DME. OK there were marker beacons, but surely a rough range from touchdown is obtainable from the glideslope angle (ie 350, 650, 950ft plus the threshold elevation etc), or maybe from the navigation display or, as a last resort, by asking the approach radar controller.

Easy there, FinDir... Play the ball, not the man. Take the high road, else be prepared to get some of your own medicine. Remember, what comes around goes around. Don't be too quick on the trigger. Strive to avoid being all heat and no light. For after all is said and done, more is said than done. Remember, even a hare will bite when it is cornered. Examine what is said, not him who speaks. Above all, don't speak unless you can improve on the silence [Insert other idioms/proverbs/metaphors as appropriate].

Dave
ATCer

The whole point of having range information provided by markers or DME is to cross check the glidepath against range - not the other way around. Most ILSs in the UK have DME instead of markers these days so the only option might be for the controller to provide a radar-derived range check at a suitable time but some operators will not accept this as an alternative (and in my experience some controllers straight out of basic training appear not to understand what is needed by the crew so I guess it isn't always covered by training). In the case that started this thread, though, it's all academic because the procedure is promulgated as not available without the DME.