There is an element of rods for our own backs here.

Standard procedure is to report ready for departure. Then at busier airfields, e.g. LGW as mentioned above, you are instructed to monitor, not contact, tower.

Hence unless some kind of 'be ready immediate' instruction is given, or 'are you ready immediate' question is asked, there is going to be the possibility that the aircraft is not ready. So what we see is this:

Due frequency workload, one piece of standard RT is removed ("Callsign, Ready for departure"). By so doing, situations are created that require the creation of additional routine calls by ATC.
Net result? more scope for errors, little if any change in RT workoad.

Obviously, anyone clued will keep tracks on the inbounds and inform tower that they are not ready as they are given their line up instruction, rather than waiting till on the runway. But even so, its likely to upset towers game plan.


Similarly, when checking in with tower from approach, I was trained to report my position, to improve everyones situational awareness. E.G. "Callsign, 6 dme" or somesuch. Now, we are routinely instructed to contact tower with callsign only, so when we check in aircraft at the holding point do not immediately know where we are unless ATC tell them. So...... ATC have to tell them.

So again, argueably we are not actually reducing total RT traffic, but just piling it up on the ATCO.


I don't really have a bone to pick about this, its no biggie, I'm just in contemplative mode.

CPB

I only raised this point to get some clarification of something I have noticed more and more recently. It may well have been in place for some years but I'm definately hearing it more often thesedays.

It also hightlights another matter - namely the ever increasing differences between UK and other European procedures.

I've never (I don't think) heard such calls outside of the UK.

Likewise that old chestnut of always being cleared for Localiser then Glidepath - as separate clearances in UK, but overseas simply being cleared for the ILS when on an intercept heading. I've read many attempted explanations but, quite frankly, they don't make sense and simply clog up the RT at busy airports. A delayed ILS clearance due excessive RT can put you high - pointless really.

The simple solution the original problem - don't accept a line up clearance untill pre take off checks (or equivalent) are complete. Then you are always ready immediate.

Right then Petals,
At Manch last year.
ATC..."XXX12, ready immediate?" "XXX12, affirm" "Roger, landing traffic 3 miles cleared IMMEDIATE take off".....a/c lines up and THEN says... XXX12, We need a minute for the engines:rolleyes: :confused: . Next tx..."VVV99 go around, I say again go around"
Immediate....Hmmmm
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

chiglet

Either the guy was a git (probable) or he had some minor problem with the engines that had only just developed (unlikely, but possible).

In any event, the immediate call didn't make the slightest difference to the sequence of events.

Another reason we use such phraseology is so that we 'own' the r/t at critical moments.

By adding the 'landing traffic...' part to the take off clearance, we can spool out the moment and launch the departure at just the right time, reducing the ability of someone else transmitting at a critical point.

Last year, a B752 departed on a SAM, inbound checked in at 7nm. BA146 on a SAM given line up & wait as it's a 2 minute departure separation.
Just as the ATCO was about to launch the BA146, the inbound started discussing ILS fluctuations and didn't stop talking until he was at 2nm.
The ATCO replied that no fluctuations had been reported and that he should go around I say again go around acknowledge.
A very surprised missed approach was carried out:eek:

Flaps One;

Come to the US, you will here be ready for an Immediate quite a bit at busy airports...

regards

Scott

To bad that some pilots is less effektive ....... ;)

I have som unpleasant experiences with C-130s, callsign "Ascot" :D

Be fair - the RAF C130's have 4 elastic bands to wind up!!

Flaps,

having worked in Europe and the UK I must say I couldn't agree more about the split phraseology in the UK for the ILS intercept. It wastes time in a busy environment and is outdated in my view. Worth a separate topic? Anyone from SRG reading this like to explain to me why we persist with this difference in the UK?:confused:

I disagree with you, though, about "...be ready immediate..." I heard it used regularly by my european colleagues. It is clear and concise and effective. It is sad but true that many pilots DO NOT roll without delay when cleared. We like to let you know when we are playing it a bit tight. It raises your situational awareness and makes it very clear what we NEED from you. We do our best to shift traffic. We are trying to get you airborne/on the deck asap. It makes us very unhappy bunnies when some pilots sit and dawdle on our runways.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

Eggs,

We got a phraseology change a little while ago that now allows us to say, before you've reported established on the localiser, "when established on the localiser, descend on the ILS".

Not quite what you're looking for but, when used appropriately, should stop those situations where you're left hanging above the glide because you can't get in to say loc established and receive the all important "descend on the ILS" in return.

Works for me at EGLL.

WF.

How about

" turn right heading 240 clearedILS 27r Contact the tower at 4 miles"

?:p