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.

I assume you mean making reference to it while airborne rather than being on the ground at LHR!

Some of the hospital flights that sometimes come in and out with organs are little light props. Perhaps cherokee was a little too far down the scale ;)

The reason not all can receive it is because 121.935MHz is a 8.33kHz spaced frequency and, IIRC, carriage of 8.33kHz equipment is only mandatory in UK above FL195.


JD
:)

KLM F50s (or have they been modified?) and some helicopters are not 8.33 equipped....I believe it was the rotary winged types ST was referring to.

Firstly totally agree that QNH passed by ATC is a mandatory readback.

If I call to get a clearance prior to start/pushback and advise I have "Info X" why do I need to state the QNH since this is normally passed again when I call for taxi and the readback is mandatory?

If I am inbound (on a Flight Level) I will be passed QNH when cleared to descend to an altitude and this also requires a mandatory readback so why do I need on initial call to pass QNH?

I guess it depends on the unit - at LHR, QNH is not passed by GMC as you taxi, there wouldn't be the RT space most of the time!

Regardless of the QNH issue, I have lost track of the number of times that crews state the current ATIS and have ignored half of it by calling the wrong freq, or asking for Pre departure clearance when the ATIS says it isn't available, or...... I could go on. From our end it often appears crews only wait for the letter then stop listening.

Surely it can't be too hard to acknowledge the letter, QNH, aircraft type and stand on first call to GMP. It certainly saves R/T when we don't have to go back and ask for it all again.

fireflybob, with the greatest respect ;), this is not the original question on the thread - and I don't think anyone is disputing this point - however ...
... this is precisely the thread question (to which, incidentally, there has not yet been offered a satisfactory answer) and ...

... this is a related and very valid point, with which I would totally agree. :ok:

As I have said, there is just too much unnecessary time-wasting double-speak.


JD
:)

JD and fireflybob...

That's a moot point, because at LHR we do not give the QNH out at all, either with pushback or taxi.....if you state the correct QNH first time 'round.

The reason? So we can ensure you have the correct QNH. I'm having problems understanding what is so difficult to grasp.

Gonzo, I don't frequent LHR these days (but did so in a previous life when people boarded a/c wearing suits!) but if you come north of Watford you'll find that at certain unmentioned airports, depending who's on duty, we get the QNH rammed down our throats several times even when it hasn't changed or we give it on initial call with ATIS X only to have it given to us yet again! Am all for safety and anything that avoids CFIT and/or Altitude Bust is a good thing but if you cry wolf too often it loses it's effectiveness!

My dear Gonzo, this is rather in danger of becoming chicken-and-egg.

It is indeed to your credit at LL that you do not repeat the QNH ad infinitum during our push/start/taxy phase, as others such as fireflybob have to suffer elsewhere. At least you accept that one QNH acknowledgement is sufficient. However, this is not quite the original thread question, which was concerned with why we are asked to acknowledge both the ATIS letter and also to repeat the QNH, which is itself an essential and integral part of the ATIS that we are implicitly acknowledging as having copied and understood. One confirmation of QNH, either explicit or implicit, should suffice.

To a professional, such repetition can be irritating as it is clearly unnecessary R/T clutter; in the same way, I'm sure that you would find it tiresome if we were to be constantly asking you for the QNH during taxy, just in case it had changed. Only in the case where QNH does change from the acknowledged ATIS letter should it need to be mentioned (by you) - and then, of course, it will be read back.

Does that help you to grasp the problem? ... or have I missed the point of your frustration ... ?


JD
:)

As a bystander watching with interest can I make a quick comment.

Fireflybob said:
In this circumstance I assume that you would have already listened to the current ATIS, containing the QNH, prior to contacting the APP controller; you may even have been asked to indicate which version you are working with upon first contact.
No explicit QNH readback would be required until you are instructed to descend to altitude since you will not need to USE the current QNH information until that time.

Jumbo Driver said:
I agree that you are acknowledging receipt of the current ATIS, as is the arriving pilot contacting an Approach unit for the first time.
However, controllers need to be assured that departures are working to the same datum as other inbound traffic that has been required to readback the QNH upon descent to altitude.

If you will; you are 'climbing' to field elevation and need to be informed and acknowledge explicit receipt of that information.

Both situations attempt to trap human factor errors (1012/1021) on the communication side.

Jumbo Driver said:
As another poster pointed out; updates once you are talking to GMC or AIR would be transmitted as a broadcast, trusting that you are concentrating upon the job at hand.

Sorry to intrude.
:O

JD,

Why is is that when a flight crew is given a climb/descend instruction, the new level is cross checked between pilots?

Why is it that when a new pressure setting is given, the new setting is cross checked between pilots?

Surely you're both intelligent, resourceful, highly trained people, who would not get it wrong? Surely the handling pilot can be assumed to have heard and entered the correct informtation....Waste of time this cross checking lark, isn't it?

;)

Ooohhh, Gonzo ... you are a card ... ;)


JD
:)

mocoman, thank you for your input ... we are in danger of becoming mired in this one, so I will only respond to one point. You say

This of course is an admirable aim, but I would argue that simple repetition is inappropriate and hardly likely to be effective. Firstly, an error is highly unlikely when departing, as any professional worth his salt is going to set the QNH and then check that airfield elevation is correctly displayed, within normal altimeter tolerances. That should take care of any significant (i.e. transpositional) errors which could cause, say, an altitude bust. Smaller errors of 1mb (27' at msl) or so, if they occur, are actually insignificant and not likely to cause such a problem. Secondly, when arriving, as fireflybob has most eloquently said, the initial descent clearance to an altitude is always given together with the QNH, which of course is read back at that time; no additional readback of the QNH is required when acknowledging the arrival ATIS.

Anyway, I digress; the thread topic concerns the unnecessary repetition of QNH with ATIS acknowledgement and I remain totally unconvinced that this particular procedure actually serves to improve safety.


JD
:)

Agreed, so why do so many pilots "volunteer" the QNH when acknowledging the arrival ATIS?

Reading back the QNH with the ATIS letter is the only check that LHR ATC have to ensure that you have copied/heard the ATIS QNH correctly.

In probably the busiest time in the cockpit, (emergencies aside), it could be rather simple to be distracted and mishear or write down the wrong QNH. By transmitting it in the manner that LHR require you to do, you have an independant cross check.

Independant cross checks are part and parcel of aviation. This one makes sense because as Gonzo states, it is the only time, if you state the correct QNH, that you will hear it at LHR.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp, it's not a time consuming thing to do, and it does have an added safety benefit. Maybe only one crew per year will get the QNH wrong, but if they can be corrected before getting airborne, then surely this check is worth it?

Lack of professionalism by the OP is what we should be stamping out!

You read the QNH back because it is a mandatory readback - as are various other items in a clearance.
How difficult is it really? 4 numbers?:confused:
You know then that you have the correct QNH as do I.

I frankly don't care how important you think you are on your flight deck - I, too, won't give you start up until you've managed to readback the QNH properly.:p

louby

There's a surprise :rolleyes:

Presumably you can now add QNH readbacks to your ever growing list of ATC procedures that you believe are a waste of time. Filed right under "ROCAS" no doubt.

Oh, and just to show that I do have a mind of my own, I completely agree on the point of not passing the QNH to XXX director on arrival...really doesn't bother me if you do or don't as you will get it when you get descent to an altitude.

As many have stated before the tower need to check you have the correct QNH it doesn't take long and it's safety critical. LL check once and that's all that's required.

We need to hear the QNH because it's the rules, simple as that. You want it changed, contact the CAA.

Regarding unneccesary RT it does work the other way. I hail from the LL radar environment and on first contact a/c should pass cleared level, a/c type (yes this is important as I've lost count of the number of incorrectly filed plans, including a few vortex changes!) and ATIS letter.

Now it has become common practice recently for some crews to also include the QNH on first contact with LL director. Why? It doesn't bother me, but 99.99% of the time the a/c is direct to the holding point cleared to a flight level not an altitude. I'll inform the a/c of the QNH when I descend it to an altitude there is no reason for the crew to tell me what it is when they're still at flight levels. Another midly irritating thing is when an a/c is cleared to succesively lower altitudes and continues to read the QNH back with every successive clearance, even though they've read it back correctly once already.

I fear unnecessary R/T loading is a crime committed on both sides of the radio. We need to minimise it without removing the safety nets.