Sorry Gonzo - I missed your post because I was talking to Cazalet.

PDR

I'm way out of currency here (and only ever as a PPL at that) but on a safety-related call isn't the ATCO supposed to get a readback, or at least an acknowledgement, before proceeding to anything else?

PDR

I've never admitted to not having listened when I have missed a call on a mandatory frequency.

I've certainly never filed a voyage report on the basis of not having listened to a call I did not hear.

How about you, Gonzo?

Hee hee!
:D

Edited to add: Are we allowed to laugh on this frequency?

Eyethenkyew...

PDR

Ah, so it's more the fact they said that they were talking to the ground crew rather than the fact they were?

I don't think this crew were going to file on that basis either. The pushback manoeuvre was stopped due to conflicting traffic, that's the basis for the report.


How about me, what? Have I missed a call? How would I know? I don't think I have. However, I have frequently ignored calls from aircraft (and co-ordination attempts from other ATCOs) intentionally because I was dealing with something else that, at that time, was a priority.
Much like, one might think, a ground crew telling flight crew that they were stopping the pushback because of traffic going behind. That might take priority over listening to Ground.

And what's your definition of a 'mandatory frequency'?

Good for you.

This erse (he wasn't Irish but I need to get around the autocensor) actually admitted that he wasn't even listening when he subsequently made an arse (dunno how I got away with that one!) of himself by bitching that he wasn't told.

Then we have to agree to differ. Based on the transcripts (which I acknowledge may be incomplete), the BA still had a valid clearance to push, conditional only on the RYR having passed behind, at the point in time when the ground crew stopped the pushback. However long he took to move off the stand doesn't alter that.

So in the absence (so far) of any recording of the controller instructing the BA to stop, or at least advising him of the conflict at the time she cleared the Stobart to push, I stand by my view.

No. The two should be synonymous, if the Nigel has any cred.


I don't feel any urge to make such a definition, but I'm quite sure that listening to Ground when manoeuvring on the ground would fit it. Aren't you?

It's stuff like this that makes me wish we had the same laws against putting ATC recordings on facetube and it's ilk that they have in the UK.

This is a partial recording, and even if it wasn't, we all have off days. I could make a mare of something and go home to find it all over the internet. Imagine dealing with that? Your kids getting stick in school because "your mummy/daddy nearly directed/flew an airplane into another airplane"

Bullsh*t

Una,

Doesn't stop them doing so though. However, it might stop news outlets embedding/playing the clips.

I agree, it would also stop the embarrassing speculation and judgement we can see in this thread.

Let's be honest, nobody has the full picture here. To have that right n ow you'd need to have been in the VCR, and in the cockpit.

Nobody was, therefore reports should be filed so it can be investigated.

It's not rocket science.

Shannon's remarkably gone quiet since stirring the pot!

:p
Bwahaha!

Can I say that on this frequency without being given 'time out'?

Embarrassing, innit?

Judging by the heavily edited version on youtube and the slightly longer version on the LiveATC.net archive there doesn't appear to have been any attempt by the controller to call the Speedbird before the push was stopped by the ground crew. Perhaps the BA crew should have been more honest and said "We weren't listening because we were too busy talking to the ground crew dealing with the screw up".

Actually depending on the circumstances, it could well require two pilots talking to the ground crew.


A new pilot in their early line training, operating the sector as PF, (meaning they're the one talking to ground, whilst PNF talks to ATC), may have never been to Dublin before so unfamiliar with the airfield, unfamiliar with what was going on around them, confused by another aircraft seemingly in conflict and the ground crew stopping the push when they weren't expecting it.

Training captain would be very wise to take up the communication with pushback crew, thus leaving ATC ground un-responded to.

I'm not saying that was the case here, but it is easily a possibility, and BA have been recruiting like mad, they have their FPP scheme with pilots who are fresh out of CPL training, plus a load of direct-entry type-rated pilots onto short haul with maybe not much more than 500 hours. Lots of training going all the time there.



Thing is, unless you're actually on a runway at the time, if you're on the ground and not moving, then listening to ATC and replying promptly are usually not (as) critical, when compared to other things (such as talking to the ground crew who just stopped your pushback before an accident occurred).

Just had a listen to the archive and I have come down on the side of the controller.
It took BA the best part of 4 mins to get moving. That was the problem. The ryanair they should have pushed behind was long gone and had been on the stand long enough for the ATR to push back and move behind the BA. The clipped warning call from ATC probably came about the same time that the BA started to move.

I have no axe to grind with BA, I think their crews are generally excellent but this wasn't their finest moment.

I'm not sure that's a valid conclusion based on the layout of Dublin. The BA is on stand 20something, the ATR is on 125 and I think the Ryanair is going to 200. That means the Ryanair is only going to pass behind the BA about 10 seconds before he passes behind the ATR. When the ATR gets his conditional push clearance he is still waiting for the Ryanair to pass behind. It's entirely plausible that the BA is still then waiting for the Ryanair to pass behind. There's only two minutes between the ATR getting his push clearance and the BA stopping. Add a minute for the Ryanair to pass behind the BA and you can easily get two aircraft pushing within the space of a minute, with a clear statement from the controller that the ATR was supposed to give way to the BA in the subsequent dialogue.

If the BAW is told the traffic is passing behind right to left and the Stobart is told in the amended conditional clearance( which they seem to have ignored) that the BAW is to their left then the RYR passes behind the Stobart first and the BAW has to wait.....or have I heard that incorrectly?

The BA would have been facing south and the Stobart facing north. Stand 125 is east of the BA and the inbound Ryanairs stand is south east of 125. So the inbound Ryanair would have passed behind the BA from their right shoulder to their left, then behind the Stobart from their left shoulder to their right. The BA would always have been on the left of the Stobart if the stands are correct.