Your experience with: "STANDY-BY/Monitor"?
 

"STAND-BY", new in Maastricht, anyone got experience with this ("Monitor" concept, positive and/or negative)?

(A0289/15 NOTAMN
Q) EHAA/QSUXX/IV/NBO/E /245/999/5259N00454E999
A) EHAA B) 1503230000 C) 1504122359
E)A STANDBY CAMPAIGN AT MAASTRICHT UAC IS CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE FREQUENCY LOAD AND THE NUMBER OF CROSS-TRANSMISSIONS. THE PHRASEOLOGY 'STANDBY FOR MAASTRICHT ON (CHANNEL-NAME)' CAN BE EXPECTED FOR TRANSFER OF FREQUENCY. PILOTS ARE REMINDED TO ANNOUNCE THEY ARE STANDING BY WHEN FREQUENCY TIME ALLOWS.)

(A1330/15 NOTAMN
Q) EDXX/QSUXX/I/NBO/E/245/999/5110N01027E999
A) EDGG EDWW B) 1503230000 C) 1504122359
E) A STANDBY CAMPAIGN AT MAASTRICHT UAC IS CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO
REDUCE THE FREQUENCY LOAD AND THE NUMBER OF CROSS TRANSMISSIONS. THE PHRASEOLOGY 'STANDBY FOR MAASTRICHT ON (CHANNEL-NAME)' CAN BE EXPECTED FOR TRANSFER OF FREQUENCY.
PILOTS ARE REMINDED TO ANNOUNCE THEY ARE STANDING-BY
WHEN FREQUENCY TIME ALLOWS.)

(A0454/15 NOTAMN UACC
Q) EBBU/QSUXX/I/NBO/E/245/999/5029N00417E999
A) EBBU B) 1503230000 C) 1504122359
E) A STANDBY CAMPAIGN AT MAASTRICHT UAC IS CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE FREQUENCY LOAD AND THE NUMBER OF CROSS-TRANSMISSIONS. THE PHRASEOLOGY 'STANDBY FOR MAASTRICHT ON (CHANNEL-NAME)' CAN BE EXPECTED FOR TRANSFER OF FREQUENCY. PILOTS ARE REMINDED TO ANNOUNCE THEY ARE STANDING-BY WHEN FREQUENCY TIME ALLOWS.)

I do not agree with the system and never employed it when it was introduced at Heathrow. It might cause inconvenience on the ground but in the air, if a pilot accidentally sets the wrong frequency, the consequences could be dangerous.

Even if they are not on the wrong freq, 'Standby/Monitor/Listen out', whatever, many pilots don't seem to be able to keep their mouths shut anyway.

GMC: 'Birdseed one-oh-one, monitor one one eight decimal five'

'Listen Point five, one-oh-one'

……….

'Heathrow Tower, Birdseed one-oh-one, we're with you, listening (monitoring/standing by) one one eight five, holding on the left, we're fully ready when you call us, just waiting for the cabin…..' blah blah etc etc

Crazy Voyager, if you're missing something then I am too...

As a pilot, I am taught that "Standby" means to not transmit until I'm called. The response to an instruction to standby is nothing. No "roger" or "standing by" or any of the other dribble you commonly hear.

In my mind, the instruction "STANDBY FOR MAASTRICHT ON (CHANNEL-NAME)", is mixing up the instruction to monitor a frequency and to standby. Its fine on paper but when you mix that up in a busy congested frequency you're just asking for trouble. A standard "monitor {channel name & freq}" would be far more appropriate.

With regards to the risk of selecting the wrong frequency, I don't think this system is significantly more risky than other systems, as the likelihood of selecting the wrong frequency is about the same, and then if I'm on the wrong frequency, I'll clue onto it eventually and go back to my original frequency...

Sorry, I don't get it, maybe the weekend was too tough.
Isn't this the ordinary "switch to a busy frequency" in busy times anyways?
This is what I would expect in reality.

ATC: XXX Standby for Maastricht on CHN (short form of: XXX switch to Maastricht frequency CHN, stay calm until called, they are quite busy there)

A/C: standing by for Maastricht in CHN XXX (confirm CHN, also made optional by the NOTAM - which is the minor point I am not with, as it adds a shortcut in radio and cuts confirmation at the same time, although this is done already anyways, it should be the exception, not a NOTAMed regular behavior)
- switch to CHN
- keep mouth shut until called

What if, you are never called and about to enter the next area ... they forgot about you or they are too busy, or ...

So far this year, even before the start of the summer season, MUAC has been experiencing a traffic increase that makes our ATC sectors and frequencies very busy.
MUAC is working proactively to offset the impact of this increased demand in many ways. One of them is trying to save valuable frequency-time that is often lost by stations calling in and overriding each-other’s transmissions.
For which reason he have issued the NOTAMs for the UIRs under MUAC control, valid from 23 March to 12 April 2015

A STANDBY CAMPAIGN AT MAASTRICHT UAC IS CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE FREQUENCY LOAD AND THE NUMBER OF CROSS-TRANSMISSIONS. THE PHRASEOLOGY ‘STANDBY FOR MAASTRICHT ON(CHANNEL-NAME)’ CAN BE EXPECTED FOR TRANSFER OF FREQUENCY. PILOTS ARE REMINDED TO ANNOUNCE THEY ARE STANDING-BY WHEN FREQUENCY TIME ALLOWS.

Most of all, MUAC would like stations not to call in at all, but after having a close look at ICAO regulations, it is clear this should not be done.

1. STAND BY FOR (unit call sign) (frequency) ;
2. MONITOR (unit call sign) (frequency) ;

So, an aircraft may be requested to:
1. “STAND BY” on a frequency when it is intended that the ATS unit will initiate communications soon, and to
2. “MONITOR” a frequency when information is being broadcast thereon (e.g. ATIS).

STAND-BY Phraseology

ATC: “SPEEDBIRD 123, standby for Maastricht (on) 118.950”
Airborne Station: “Standby for Maastricht 118.950, SPEEDBIRD 123”

Current ICAO regulations (ICAO Annex 2 – Rules of the Air, ICAO Doc 9426 and 7754) require:

• an initial call [from the flight] when entering the area of an ATS unit, and
• a ground-initiated call to an aircraft prior to its leaving that area.

These are considered to be a minimum requirement for air ground communications.

So the Stand-By Phraseology after being transferred in this way should be:
Airborne Station: “Maastricht, SPEEDBIRD 123 Standing by”

Needless to say that such an announcement could lead to cross-transmissions again, so air stations are kindly requested to wait for a silence on the radio before doing so.

1. Should it not be “Monitor” instead of “Stand-By”?

No, ICAO Doc 4444 - PANS ATM / Chapter 12 – PHRASEOLOGIES § 12.3.1.3, as quoted above, clearly makes the difference.


2. Does this not increase the risk for a Loss of Communication?

If the air station makes an announcement of standing by, the concern is of course mitigated. In Maastricht the ATCO makes at that moment a system input showing the flight is on his frequency, and so from then on it cannot be forgotten.
Even when the air station is not calling in at all, the transferring sector can see that nobody in Maastricht is making this input of starting communications with that flight, and will point that out to the receiving MUAC sector.
MUAC is not using the Stand-By method for transfer of communications to external units.


3. What is the difference to the normal transfer of communications, when Pilots are just required to report Standing-By?

The biggest difference is that apart from the possible “standing-by” announcement, to which no reply is to be expected, the initiative for communications comes from the ground. This allows the ATCOs to do their own frequency time-management, addressing the stations not always in the order of arrival but rather in order of priority.


4. What exact phraseology is to be used?

Transfer of Communications in ATC Sector 1:
ATC: “SPEEDBIRD 123, standby for Maastricht (on) 118.950”
Airborne Station: Standby for Maastricht 118.950, SPEEDBIRD 123”
Start of Communications in ATC Sector 2:
Airborne Station: “Maastricht, SPEEDBIRD 123 Standing by”
No reply is to be expected! ATC has the responsibility to initiate communications and address the flight.


5. When are pilots are required to report Standing-By, if not called by ATC?

This is perhaps the most important question.By all means, if the pilot would feel unsure: do call in. When using the phraseology “Maastricht, [Callsign] Standing by”: by all means, please wait for a silence on the radio-frequency before doing so.

Could you not just open another frequency manned by another ATCO?

Sorry, I still dont' get it.



This still seems like a contradiction to me.

Yes I can see the other regulation quoted, but once again, wouldn't a "contact with callsign only" then yield the same result without the need for this trial (and what seems to be a bit of confusion) in the first place?

I apologize for being slow today.

Instead of the standard "greetings conversation" one now just says "hello standing by"? Something like a heavyweight RMZ? Why not simply the same used regularly on certain FISesseses: "<CALLSIGN> now on <FREQ>"? or is this too far from ICAO bureaucracy?

Further question, does Maastricht see our Mode-S? Why the call in that case, wouldn't a proactive squawk 7001 (or other) with Mode-S not also give the same "here I am, this is my name and I am listening" without even one call? This would even promote Mode-S further and would give us who spent a fortune for the S.XPDR a tiny feeling of it was some small kind of worth.

Following a messed up check-in with new sector (our fault, possibly?)

And completely 'missed' on the radar scope by the busy controller

Resulting in prolonged lost com

Found by subsequent sector on 121,5

I am about the figure out if a 'just culture' means just that



Perhaps this solves one problem, but another one is created? Give slots instead.

Stand-by for Maastricht?
 

received a notice that a new "procedure" is coming....which in my opinion shows that the procedure makers are not regular flyers.

they state, "wait for a silence on the radio before"
saying you are standing by. Duh?

perhaps they could simply say as they do into STN, "contact xxx.x with call sign only" and I think most wait until the frequency is quiet. But how long? I think many try to be quick draw mcgraws after the end of the current transmission, but realistically; 1 sec? 2 sec? But we then appear to wait about the same time, then block each other out, some times several times, then ATC finally states a call sign and instruction. I have gotten to where I treat a busy frequency as a mini-loss of comms after the first blocked transmission and proceed as previously cleared and wait for them to call me.

If memory serves, flying into DFW in 90s, the approach frequency was often a full on broadcast from ATC and we just did what we were told whilst he went on to all the other aircraft. If an aircraft didn't do what it was told the ATC would come back with a stern voice telling that aircraft to do it NOW. I remember a king air that on the third transmission was given a 180 heading change and another frequency after two stern directions.

So they some how managed without multiple publications from the desk flyers.

Should be another fun summer ahead.

You should try talking to Cairo. Now that is a difficult area, particularly if you need to descend or climb......or even just check in.

Mode S and CPDLC should have solved this years ago...
But as long as this US/Europe war on gettin' a common standard is still ongoing, saturated R/T and crossed transmissions still have a good future.

Not invented here.

stator vane
 

Are you talking about Maastricht Control or Maastricht Airport?

We tried using 'stand by with tower on xxx.x' for Ground to Tower transfers instead of 'monitor tower' for a few days about ten years ago. We swiftly went back to using 'monitor'.

For what MUAC seems to want, callsign only would appear to be the better fit.

The full text is available, for example, on Facebook here https://www.facebook.com/eurocontrol?fref=nf as the OP forgot to post it.

It's just a gentle reminder to some who transmit first and listen second. Not a particularly big thing

Location STN? Didn't realise Stornoway was so busy :-)

STN: Stansted Airport
SYY: Stornoway Airport

Doh.

STN - Stornoway VOR

Doh!!


FWIW a bit of understanding how the system works at MUAC and other modern centres might explain things.
It is possible to access almost any info that ATC needs via the track block associated with any flight. Type, airspeed FL and ROC are all available. This removes athe need for a lot of R/T exchanges. A few minutes before the flight enters a sector the track symbol will begin to flash. When contact is established the controller will "assume" the flight thereby bringing the track block to the same level of brightness as the others under his control. At the same time, the track block on the previous sector will dim, indicating that it is no longer under his control.
This makes two R/T calls redundant - the acknowledgement of the QSY, and the acknowledgement of the initial call to the sector. In busy periods this can stack up considerably.

Be assured this will all have been looked at, possibly even a number of simulations run at Bretigny to discover what influence this has on a controller's workload and performance

Is this internal MUAC comms only or are you expecting external units ie London to tell the aircraft to "standby on"?

Bit difficult to find either these days at a busy unit.
I see there's another thread joined this having been booted from R&N

Introduces the opportunity for much more confusion, and the risk of Comms difficulties, than it would solve. If a frequency is so busy that you need to regulate it, your declared capacity is too high perhaps ?

Lon and 10W,
I don't know much about the sectorisation/staffing at MUAC, but from what I do know of Eurocontrol, they seem to be aware of the 'big picture' regarding traffic pending. Having spent many hours on 'fam-flights' listening to Maarstricht it always sounded very professional.
I'm just amazed that there is no spare sector/ATCO capacity available. If this is the case 10W has a very valid point.

Zooker i presume you mean sectorisation?

It's pretty much split as best it can. Geographically ignoring national boundaries, almost all split horizontally as well. Divide it up even more and as 10W said you're only replacing one set of problems with another.

This is an attempt to reduce the frequency loaading. If it can avoid two transmissions per flight per sector it's proably giving 20 seconds more for each one. Take 25 - 30 flights per hour which is a lot for a sector + say FL340 and you free up a lot more thinking time.

Sputnik may know; was this trialled at Bretigny? They can assess the controller workload very accurately by running a series of excercises with a number of variables

Thanks Lon,
corrected now. 20 years ago I spent a month on Project AR39 at Bretigny, they seemed capable of measuring everything!

zooker; I'm not aware if Eurocontrol has tested this new "procedure"at Bretigny or not. But buttom line is that it causes a lot of confusion. I totally agree with thos who suggests the use of monitor, or check in with callsign only. But I guess the big problem is that noone at Eurocontrol wants to tell us to use phraseology that is not 100% in compliance with ICAO rules. So it becomes a bit useless. But I'm highly in favor of using check in with callsign only.

When it comes to sectorisation and lack of capacity it's the result of a lot of things. Last year we saw (especially in the Brussels sectors) a massive - and unexpected - increase of traffic. This year even higher levels of traffic are expected as Germany has raised its route charges significantly resulting in many flights avoiding Germany (ie flying west of Germany through eastern Belgium and Luxembourg). Our flow people have tried to tactically force westbound traffic gojng towards the UK a little bit further north to avoid Belgium and fly in the southern part of Dutch airspace (less congested), but the the Belgians will not have it. If aircrafts have filed through Belgian airspace the HAVE to fly that way because the depend a lot on the route charges.

Geographically Belgium is challenged as it's sorrounded by many major airports. Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, London area, Dusseldorf, Cologne etc. This gives us a lot of vertical movements in a limited airspace (Belgium is tiny). I don't know that our declared capacity is too high, but we are nearing the limit. And because of all the vertical movements it's difficult to just add extra sectors.

and finally staffing is an issue. So even with extra sectors there would be no qualified people to man them.

Mattis,
tell me about it.
A couple of years ago, I went to an interesting presentation by an Airbus marketing man. It was amazing how many A318s/319s/320s etc they were planning to sell.
Over here, a big ATCO retirement-bulge has just started to take effect, (the result of staff-cutting during the 1970s 'Oil-Crisis', and subsequent intense recruitment).
With those folk at SESAR hell-bent on reducing costs, it doesn't look good.
CPDLC might be an answer, but it's easier to press a switch and talk to someone than type a message into a tiny keyboard.

All CPDLC instructions are done via mouse clicks on the radar screen (frequencies, route points etc are all in dropdown menus. Screenshot taken from the Eurocontrol website:
https://www.eurocontrol.int/services...communications

http://i58.tinypic.com/6t0piv.png

CPDLC
 

The more aircraft that have this fitted and working the more London area control can QSY to the next freq. this will save a huge amount of rt. QSY can be achieved with one click of the mouse.

Unfortunately, London is not meant to use this below fl200, but it would make some sense that QSY could be allowed below fl200 as it is not so safety critical as say a level change.

Has anyone who doesn't like it sat down and written a complaint to either (internally) Current Ops. or to (externally) Eurocontrol HQ?

FWIW I was involved in the initial trials at Bretigny when colour displays shown above were being developed. As Zooker said, they could measure almost anything. Even the initial tests for colour blindness took almost a morning

I have to admit that the process seems to be a lot more complicated than it could be. I certainly had to read the NOTAM a couple of times for it to make any sense. This doesn't really solve R/T loading as a call is still required to be made to confirm that you are 'standing by'.

To this day I have never been told to 'standby' in connection to the action of changing frequency but I have been told to 'monitor' many times throughout the world. ICAO Doc 4444 - PANS ATM aside - being told to 'monitor' is clear and unambiguous and would help to reduce R/T loading.

Why make life more complicated than it needs to be?

Does Schipol still use "standby on ground/tower"? If so do they also expect pilots to report "standing-by" on the new frequency?

Back in the dark ages when 'Monitor' wasn't working, and 'Standby' wasn't working, a number of ATCOs including HD and me used the unofficial 'Listen' eg. "Listen one one eight decimal five, Good-day"

One simple, two-syllable, easy to pronounce word, one meaning, hardly likely to be confused with anything else, and generally very effective…

Only a few were daft enough to call up and say 'hey, Tower, I'm listening'…
('No you're not, you're talking…')

Any comments on how it's going?

Perhaps your LOA needs renegotiating? :}

Historically more customer orientated than some of the neighbours :}. Not Swanning off to the canteen every five minutes

In general, its not.

Its a nice idea in principle, but it wont work and ATCOs dont have the time to educate every pilot who hasnt read or doesnt understand the NOTAM.

It would be far better for pilots simply to pay a bit of attention and not blurt their way into a busy frequency.

Its a dumbass idea in principle, always was, always will be. Quite simply it's counter intuative to common sense, as is the notam which was written by a lawyer, not an aviator/atco.

^^^

Unfortunately chap, I know who wrote the NOTAM and he is an ex-atco with very many years experience. He is/was, however, bound by the legal requirements as stipulated by ICAO in terms of the wording.

The idea of having pilots 'monitor' or standby for the next frequency is excellent in principle, however (for various reasons) this campaign has been implemented incorrectly.... or rather, has been neutered by the legal stipulations that MUAC is bound by.

The vast majority of pilots do a great job of listening in and speaking at the right moment. However it only takes an ignorant few at the wrong moment to really, really make things difficult on a busy sector. I (as an ATCO) will not be using the stand-by phraseology, but perhaps some will.