I've never understood this argument and never will...

How hard can be it to say a 3 or 4 digit number as part of readback you have to make anyway??

If that's the biggest thing you've got to worry about in you're aircraft....i don't want your job :}

It's an ICAO requirement for a pilot to report QNH on first contact with new ATSU.

and it bothers me, in fact it really boils my pi$$ to be told the QNH 40 times an hour when I already know it and I'll have to repeat it to the crew when dropping them to an altitude. Still, them's the rules.

JD,

Glad you took it in the spirit intended.... :ok:

Many of my colleauges use much stronger language toward me!!!:}

Seriously though, as Geffen said, we often have issues with crews not taking a blind bit of notice of things we add to the ATIS, such as no early clearance, no datalink clearance etc etc.

Basically as Gonzo said, we don't trust you :ok:, and have to operate to the lowest common denominator. If we are having a whinge can we discuss the meaning of the word 'Ready'. Now ducking.:O

Don't worry, terrain safe, the feeling is mutual (only joking!).

I think this thread has gone round in circles now!

Gonzo is correct, my helicopter can't receive the NAV broadcasts on the ground and prior to engine start the aircraft is designed such that I can only have my box #1, which has 25 Khz spacing, live.

I can actually change the radio to 8.33 spacing but it's a basic box setup menu option, not straightforward to do, and not a good idea to start fiddling with the main NAV/COMM box in this respect, especially when there is no requirement to use that spacing in flight. (By the time I'd worked out how to change it back again, in order to request my clearance on the same box, the QNH might have changed anyway... :p ).

Operating single pilot from LHR in particular, my workload is very high, especially prior to and during start-up.

There's only me to liase with the handling agent, get the a/c refuelled, do the paperwork, receive the pax, load the bags, do the safety brief, communicate with delivery and ask for the ATIS (!) prior to obtaining clearances for my start, taxi and departure. I then usually need to check the ramp chart / plates (and consider how I will navigate myself along the the correct taxi route, which is often convoluted) especially as the SVFR departure clearance is not always as requested. The latter can take some careful thought to assimilate what it actually means; if not familiar I need to check the cleared route on the SVFR heli-lanes chart, work out what it actually involves and how I'm going to navigate it. In addition, "Standard operating altitudes", as these clearances include, involves up to four different altitudes before leaving the zone; we are expected to achieve and maintain them, as well as two frequency changes by two miles from the departure point.

I don't have an APU so I have to conserve battery life. By design, everything comes at me in very short order; on this type of helicopter, the rotors start along with the first engine and I need my hands on the flight controls once that occurs, effectively the aircraft is waking up and beginning to fly.

The point I'm making is: If I, as a lone hand, can manage to read back the QNH whenever required to by ATC, ICAO or otherwise, surely a multi-pilot crew should have no problem or issue with it.

Shy Torque - that fits in nicely with the argument running on a thread in Jet Blast that mentions the difference between mil trained and civvy trained...

ShyTorque, I admire (dare I say, even envy ;)) you for your one-armed paper-hanger existence ... however by what you say above, I believe you are slightly missing the point.

The discussion point as I see it is not whether to read the QNH back - as a professional, I will always do so if it is required - but whether it is really necessary or helpful to do so in the circumstances set out in the original post.


JD
:)

It's a long time since I worked at Heathrow but in those days the ATIS was individually recorded at the Sups desk in Approach. Maybe it is automatic now, I don't know.

Assuming it is manually recorded, it takes time to do and the GMC/GMP controller will be in possession of the new QNH, if it has changed, a little while before the ATIS is updated.

There can also be a time gap between the pilot listening to the ATIS and contacting ground.

Reading back the QNH with the ATIS letter would identify to the controller whether or not you have the latest QNH. It fills in the gap between listening to the ATIS and calling GMP/GMC.

As having the correct QNH is a safety issue I don't see the problem in confirming you have it right. Better safe than sorry.

JD, I don't think I'm missing the point.....how shall I put this politely, what I'm alluding to is......

Stop whinging, mate. It's only a couple of seconds extra on the radio for you, so just get on with it, eh? ;)

As others have noted, it's an extra check, so you are hopefully less likely to embarrass yourself with an altitude bust on departure.

... you are missing the point ...

I'm not whingeing, mate - I still believe the "extra check" as you put it is a waste of R/T time and ineffective as claimed. No professional pilot is going to suffer an altitude bust on departure because of an incorrect QNH if he confirms the airfield altitude is correct when he sets the QNH on the ground ... or do you do it differently ... maybe even use QFE ?


JD
:)

"No professional pilot is going to suffer an altitude bust on departure because of an incorrect QNH if he confirms the airfield altitude is correct when he sets the QNH on the ground ... or do you do it differently ... maybe even use QFE?"

Sorry Jumbo, but after 34 years in ATC I have read too many reports of pilots doing just that i.e. setting wrong QNH and then having a level bust.

I would rather one extra check and avoid busts happening than one less and someone getting it wrong.

Perhaps you can back that up with a specific report, then ... ?

I really am open to persuasion if you can prove this current "double-speak" is actually effective ...

JD
:)

JD, I'm not missing your point, please don't try to excuse our differences away. I'm disagreeing with your point. :)

I haven't used QFE since leaving the miltary, over fifteen years ago. Helicopter SVFR procedures in the LHR CTR are all based on altitudes.

The rules say pilots must acknowledge an altimeter setting whenever given by ATC.

In this instance, it's their airspace, not ours, anyway. :8

Yes indeed, ST - but that isn't meant to apply when the QNH is embedded in the ATIS - otherwise we would be obliged to readback all runways, SSR codes, etc which also happened to be mentioned in the ATIS, wouldn't we ... ?

As I have said before, I'm happy to provide a readback if it is asked for - I am merely questioning it's usefulness in these circumstances.



JD
:bored:

Now that I have reired I don't have access to the reports, but I can assure you that incorrect setting of QNH does come up quite a lot.

As to your comment about reading back runways, SSR? and everything else in the ATIS, is it not just the QNH that is asked to be readback?,

:p:p:p:p:p Sorry Jumbo Driver, but I had to chuckle. The subtle art of constantly being misunderstood!

... yep ... sometimes, yer've just gotta larf ... :ok:


JD
;)

Are runway designators not mandatory readback items too? :} (Sorry edited to say I have just seen the previous posts - doh!)

Seriously though, I have been to some NATS units were I have quoted the ATIS and QNH on start and then I get told the QNH on taxy which is the same as I mentioned prior to start. I queried it 'off air' once and the response I was given was that it is a MATS Part 1 requirement to pass the QNH with taxy clearance.

If you want us to read the QNH on start up then I personally do not have a issue with that but why can't we have ATC units singing off the same hymn sheet?

Not so - there is no requirement in MATS Part 1 to repeat the QNH to an aircraft requesting start-up or taxy clearance if it is known to have been already received by the pilot; MATS Part 1 is quite specific about this (see Section 2 Chapter 1 paras 9.1 & 9.2). Implicit in this is that there is therefore no requirement in MATS Part 1 for the pilot to additionally readback the QNH; it is sufficient for the ATSU to be aware that the pilot has received the ATIS which includes the QNH.

Thus, this double-speak would appear to come not from a mandatory requirement, but from a local unit idea.

So much for standardisation ... :ugh:


JD
:)