South African ATC
 

The controllers in SA have an annoying and potentially dangerous habbit of putting '2' in front of all level clearances. i.e. "descent to F230"....could easily be F220 etc in a knackered brain.

Wake up! Your not in the US anymore. They probably use QNH too. How dangerous.

You are actually required 2.

MAX1 correct and was the result of a CFIT in SE Asia (US Hull I believe)
where "to" was not used. ICAO standard phraseology but not enforced by
some ANSP's.... Some will never learn!

Not quite. The confusion between the word 'to' and 'two' was the actual cause of the SE Asia CFIT. :( Therefore the poster has a point. ICAO procedures are not perfect (no State can claim that accolade), and they can cause situations where safety is compromised.

In the incident mentioned, ATC said 'Descend two four zero zero, cleared for NDB approach.' They wanted the pilot to descend to 2400'.

The pilots interpreted this as 'Descend to four zero zero.' They read back 'OK four zero zero.' They commenced a descent to 400' and impacted terrain.

ATC gave a confusing instruction. The pilot gave an incorrect readback which was not picked up. The pilots then ignored GPWS warnings which occured at 700' amsl until impact at 437' amsl. So there were chances to prevent the crash, but the initial cause was the use of the word to (two).

UK phraseology instigated from lessons learned in this, and other incidents, is:

'Descend Flight Level XXX' or 'Descent to Altitude xxxx feet'.

Pera I see you're related to an ex-convict and should know that many city names in different countries originate from blighty. I'm from the original Newark in the UK :=

10W thank you for the insight

I can see where this could be very confusing imaging getting this - descend to F100 and you being at F180 I would think the ATC was on something

This "problem" comes up now and again and is addressed by something one would hope would be learned by now: EVERY NUMBER HAS A NAME!. I repeat for clarity: EVERY NUMBER HAS A NAME!
Descend to F230 is not transmitted as "descend to foxtrot 230, but rather; descend to FLIGHT LEVEL 230
Descend to A040 is not to be transmitted as "descend to four thousand feet, but rather; "descend to ALTITUDE four thousand feet.
Same thing goes for altimeter settings, so repeat once again "EVERY NUMBER HAS A NAME":ugh:
The ICAO SARPS of how to actually say numbers, for example 1000, has unfortunately changed several times, but prefacing all numbers with an identifier has not.

Info
 

If you only knew what other "dangerous habbits" SA ATC have you would think twice before flying there.

The people are very professional(here I mean controllers)but their ATM Manuals and working methods are last updated in the last century.

Single man operation,procedural control "backed by radar" are just some of them.

I guess ignorance knows no bounds.

This really has to be one of the puerile complaints I've heard about an ATC service and I'm particularly unimpressed that you regarded the correct use of RT as dangerous. :ok:

10W

that is what we used to say however as a result of this accident we now now use ICAO 4444 p12.3.1.2

I'm not saying I like this but I do think world standardisation is the better course of action.

Giannni17,

That's no fair!! Have you actually worked in SA. How would you feel if people were advised not to fly into your country? Your statment regaring our ATM manual are exaggerated! I'm not sure what you mean by single man ops though. We have one ATC on position, not backed by an executive ATC, if that's what you mean?? If that is the case, we simply don't have an executive because of too little staff.

I fail to understand how the practice of using "to" is potentially dangerous in a knackered brain. Besides, who's brain are we talking about? If it's the pilot's brain, then that is why there are generally two of them, and why they've done a CRM course!

I stand corrected, but isn't this ICAO Recommended Practice?

I have yet to have one query from a pilot regarding his Flight level allocation because I have used the RT "to" during his climb or decent. We also teach students that if they could pause between "decent to (pause) Flight Level Two Two Zero.

What we also use, is RT like Flight Level Two Hundred, Three Hundred etc., opposed to Flight Level Two Zero Zero etc. What are the general thoughts on that?

Late 1976,

Yes I have worked there for 2 years.As you have noticed when you read my post I said that your ATM is out of date since when I was there it was made by someone who has already been retired for ages.Not a single change have been made for decades.

You have explained "single man operation",that is exactly what I mean by that,you are working alone on the overloaded sector with no FLOW CONTROL,with no Supervisor on duty etc etc.You know everything why should I explain it again.

As I said in my previous post the Controllers there are great people who are very very professional and who are doing everything for that system to work.My post was not an attack on the ATCO's in SA but just expanation on how ATNS functioning and what kind of people are running the show there.

Cheers mate,

Gianni

10W is spot on.

There is no need whatsoever to use the word 'to' in a descent clearance. There is a potentially dangerous chance of it being interpreted as a two and the subsequent consequences.

"Descend Flight Level xxx" or "Descend Altitude xxx ft, QNH xxx" How difficult is that??? Apart from anything else, Air Traffic Controllers are lazy bast...ds we look for the easiest way of saying and doing things. This is less words to say and there is NO ambiguity in the clearance.

This is not rocket science. :ugh:

SA atc's got dangerous habbits:confused:? What bull.

Thats funny cause last year when New Zealand ,Australia and 2 companies from the middle east were looking for controllers to lure to their pools where did they go. Thats right. The bad habbit ATC'S from SA. We lost 6 atc's out of a pool of 18.

Now I'm getting irritated.

So it's OK for every country/ANSP/controller to leap in and make their own adjustments to ICAO, include words, leave out words, change formats etc and leave the pilots to work out the differences (because I bet they are not being included in Differences to ICAO in your docs and if not I wonder what your standards people are actually enforcing).

ATC used ICAO, pilot read wrong level back, ATC did not pick up the incorrect readback as required. The error was the listening by the pilot/s, the cockpit system between the pilots for level clearance confirmation, the SA by the pilots with their impression of the allocated level, the backup descent monitoring system by the pilots, the readback pick-up by ATC and the descent surveillance by ATC...not the ICAO phraseology. :ugh:

to and for are numbers

Gotta agree with Coast.

In the US our required phraseology is "...climb/descent and MAINTAIN flight level_____."

To & for so close to the assigned altitude is not a good idea IMHO.