LHR Atis and QNH readbacks with a/c type.
 

ATIS readbacks with a/c type and QNH. Why, when the ATIS includes everything that's generally pertinent does one have to read back the QNH...at ALL cost?? If the QNH is required then why not the dew point and the surface wind? Regulation is getting so massively out of hand but will someone just explain why this boll...s with QNH readback? My reluctance to do so the other night, just to make a point,(VHF broadcasts were intended to be short, concise and audible) even brought the SATCo on freq with a threat of refusing push...WTF?This only happens in the UK and mainly at LHR altho the neophites in Cranfiels appear to be groomed to accept all this nonsense. AND...I thought a/c type was on the computerised flight plan???but in the end, a heavy is a heavy and a medium a medium, whether it be a 737 and MD83 or a 744 and 340/6...? That said, good work otherwise LHR, altho better synchronisation between the post landing phase and allocation of bays would be nice..an hour at Link 36 with all turning kinda makes Copenhagen last year look a tadge ridiculous!:confused:

Experience shows that level busts occur if a wrong QNH is set.
Yes, but sometimes the aircraft type has been changed without changing the flight plan, and we need accurate type information for the issuance of conditional clearances (especially at night) as well as vortex information.

I'm afraid stand allocation is nothing to do with us in ATC, that's the Airport Authority's responsiblity. They inform us and we inform you.

Also as the QNH is a mandatory readback item, if you have it set wrong, don't read it back and we don't challenge it - then you get airborne and cause an airprox because of it, it's our fault.

Technically.

Of course if the QNH changes all we do if you're on GMC or TWR is a broadcast and presume you've heard it - if you then cause an airprox because it's wrong it's still our fault. (I guess the theory is checking it once in delivery means you definitely have it set right once and then if it changes it will only be by 1 millibar so that's unlikely to cause a big problem if you have it wrong?)

I can't believe this.... As for making a complete fool of yourself on the R/T.... and it would NOT have been the "SATCO" who spoke to you.

It has been mandatory to read back QNH since Pontius was a Pilot..... now take a few hundred Valiums and calm down.

HNY..

Now you and I both know this is not exactly true HD ;), it was certainly a while ago that it became the "norm" in some places to have to add the QNH when acknowledging the ATIS letter (what a pain!) ... but it was not that long ago in the general scheme of things that it was more succinct ... (i.e. acknowledge receipt of Information X with aircraft type on first contact with XXXX Ground).

There is a certain logic in saying that, if you acknowledge the ATIS by letter, you are confirming that you have heard all the contents of that version ... after all, we are all professionals, aren't we? You might argue that you should also "read back" the runway(s) in use from the ATIS as well, as if you were receiving a clearance, if you want to be really pedantic ... we don't because R/T is supposed to be concise ... so I have to say I have always thought that including the QNH with the ATIS acknowledgement is actually unnecessary time-wasting double-speak.


JD
:)

Heh. I'm sure the GMC controller was sitting there thinking "Holy Crap! This dude not reading back the QHN is making a point and making me his bitch! I better see to it right away that a procedure is changed IMMEDIATELY, or he may do something else to show me up.........like not wish me Happy Festivus or call me out for 'Feats of Strength'!"

Wherever you are in the UK, Heathrow or Cranfiels(sic), the QNH is a mandatory readback.

They are the rules. Taking it out on the ATCO's is not going to help, OR CHANGE the situation.

The CAA can be contacted with your comments and queries; they're the people who regulate the industry and its components.

Visit a tower for a day, mine if you like. I'll take a £1 for each incorrect readback and go home a rich man.

I'll take a fiver each time we work out the mistake could've cost lives. I'll go home a very rich man.

:ok:

Ditto all the above. We follow the rules as set by the CAA. If you don't like it complain to them. And the R/T would be even more concise if we didn't have idiots wasting time, "trying to make a point" and needing prompted for readbacks, especially for mandatory items such as QNH. Its a few extra syllables on first contact, if its right we don't even need to acknowledge it. Not really much of an effort is it. And don't pick on Heathrow. The three major UK airports I've worked at have all been the same as is all the private airfields I've flown into.

daisy120.........how do you manage to fly with your head up your arse ?? :}

Quote:

---

Now you and I both know this is not exactly true HD , it was certainly a while ago that it became the "norm" in some places to have to add the QNH when acknowledging the ATIS letter (what a pain!) ... but it was not that long ago in the general scheme of things that it was more succinct ... (i.e. acknowledge receipt of Information X with aircraft type on first contact with XXXX Ground).

---

Not so Jumbo, I've been an ATCO for 21 years and QNH readback has been mandatory for that at least that period, perhaps not enforced at some units; but none the less mandatory, for very very obvious reasons:hmm:

The reason you have to give the QNH on initial contact with GMP/GMC is because you will be given a SID. That SID includes an altitude to fly, and when you are given an initial altitude you will also be given the QNH. That is why you are given and have to readback the QNH. Not because you heard the previous aircraft report "information Lima" and you have Bravo because you forgot to listen to the ATIS, so you lie and say you have Lima as well. Happens all the time.

Daisy120,
I seem to remember that reading back the QNH was required in Hong Kong as well.At least it was when I was working.
Also in that area there is not a lot of difference in the QNH unless there is a Tropical Depression or Typhoon passing through.However here we have 1032 one week and 975 the next.Also the classic confusers like 998 and 988mb are far more common.
It's a hot topic at the moment.:hmm:

Pilots should be flexible enough to accommodate a QNH check, or anything else required by the rules of a country they fly to. If not, that person is in the wrong profession.

Also, at LHR not every aircraft can receive the ATIS and not every aircraft operating there has a computerised flight plan.

I don't know how many incidents occur due to crews not having noted correctly the surface wind, or the temperature / dewpoint from the ATIS. Maybe it happens lots, but I don't recall ever seeing an investigation into it. I have, however, seen quite a few investigations of level busts due to incorrect QNH input. I had one inbound crew today give me the QNH, which they'd noted from the ATIS, but they were 10mb out (not just 1). I think you can cut the LHR and LTMA guys a bit of slack, given their traffic densities, in following our rules and attempting to minimise a known problem!
PS as mentioned above, when an a/c type is changed at short notice, the FPL isn't always amended as it should be, and without wishing to be too dramatic, that can be a matter of life or death if the vortex category changes without ATC becoming aware.

niknak, it is a matter of historical fact that the QNH readback has not always been required when acknowledging ATIS receipt. Exactly when it became a requirement has not been established in this discussion - I still maintain it has not been that long - however I freely admit that my memory encompasses a span much longer than your tender experience of just 21 years ATCO-ing ;) ... just about double that, in fact!

Anyway, let us not quibble about when it happened, the fact is that some while ago it became a requirement when previously it had not been so. Of course I will oblige with a readback if it is requested or required and certainly would not indulge in verbal antics with a GND controller to make a point. However, for the reasons I have already given, I still maintain it represents unnecessary time-wasting double-speak.

One last thought, I think you are wrong in your description of QNH readback when acknowledging ATIS as "mandatory" ... I think you will find (at least in UK) that it is actually only a local requirement.


JD
:)

If a QNH broadcast by an ATCO does not require a readback then why should a QNH broadcast by an ATIS require a readback?

what.?
 

Also, at LHR not every aircraft can receive the ATIS

is this really true.......

glf

Irrespective of whether you have a valid point or not, the most alarming thing in your post that I read was Are you a professional, or not?

Next time you want to take issue with an operating procedure etc, go through the correct channel - your airline will have an ATC rep/contact. You can even CHIRP it because if it makes your blood boil, are you really in a safe frame of mind to fly, or will you be distracted?

Refusing to do something that is a stipulated requirement just to make a point, is petty, pathetic and totally unprofessional, especially when it affects other people (the GMC in this instance).

The departure ATIS is on 121.935 so older radios might not be able to pick it up. We occasionally get the odd cherokee or similar that can't get it.