Requirements for seperation: why do pilots ignore them

[Ali Bin Somewhere]

tournesol apology accepted, thankyou. The reference to english as a first language IS irrelevent. It is as irrelevent and tenuous as someone's style of writing making them a sloppy controller. Get the point?

IF i caused offense by calling a small miniority of pilots stupid sorry but I do stand by that. what else would you call a person who puts hundreds of lives on both his a/c and another a/c in jeopardy just because "he couldn't see the other guy so we didn't bother complying as didn't see the need to" ? As I said it is a very very small percentage of pilots but they are creating an inordinately large ammount of workload for no reason.

Let's keep this thread positive and on topic

[sandborne]

While still trying to remain positive here the thread was started because of the fustration some of us feel about non compliance with instructions. It is simple.If you can, do. If you can't, advise. However I agree that the flow management in the UAE is woeful and as a controller I am embarrassed by some of the things I see and do to make a sequence work but given the tools and airspace that I have I am doing the best I can and my above advice applies.
Many of the step descents into the UAE are airspace dependant and cannot or rather should not be ignored by controllers. Some specifics are, if you call before ORSAR from Tehran we shouldn't be descending you until we have spoken to the Tehran controller and if you knew how hard just getting in contact with them is you would understand why the delays. When you are inbound from Muscat there are again airspace limitations that should be followed but often aren't. When calling from Bahrain on descent to Dubai and Abu Dhabi we have to call the Bahrain controller and ask for clearance to descend aircraft before certain points. If you cross the UAE FIR to/from Doha there are multiple crossing tracks on your routes and the requirements are in place to ensure separation with those routes. You cannot have efficiency for everyone when safety is the prioirity.

[oryxbollocks]

Why am I not surprised either, Popay?

Just how hard is it to do what you are told? It’s a controlled environment after all!

If you don’t know the capability of your aircraft, admit it and take a lower level or whatever. In most of the Far East you are required to be at your level by the FIR boundary, so why not do it here when asked?

Direct To? Increase your ND range and spin the heading over the waypoint. THEN, go Direct To.

Altimetry! So that’s where QR get their inane system from? Gulf Air! QNH/STD should be set as close to transition as possible and now you ATC guys confirm it. Why don’t we ALL try to get our Flight Ops departments to change the SOP?

ATC needs us at 220 by DUMPI. Do it! Don’t argue. Set 220 as a new cruise level and enjoy the view for a while before the next descent point comes up.

I appreciate you ATC guys’ comments re the time taken reporting these issues to the airlines concerned. I just wish there was a way of bringing the culprits to the attention of those responsible. Maybe then things will improve?

GB

[03Rnow30R]

Tournesoul, no worries. Just glad this thread is back on track.

Regarding the instruction that was given regarding the "....when ready turn left direct Ranbi...." I am not going to make any excuse for the ATC's sarcastic remark when the aircraft didn't turn.

Now to explain why you hear the " when ready turn left direct...." on departure from Dubai. We are only allowed to vector you or instruct you to go to a point when you are in our radar's RMA. Depending on terrain and the runway you departed on and direction of turn, it could be 1500', 2000' or 2500'. To expedite matters we can tell an aircraft after 1000' to " when ready set course wherever..." This means that the pilot is responsible for terrain clearance because it is his/her own navigation. This allows us to get aircraft turning on track quicker. As you can see, it means I can't issue a heading when you are in certain sectors as you are not high enough for me to provide you with a radar heading till you are sometimes through 2500'.

Some may say wait till the aircraft are high enough and then turn them. Sure, but we also sequence a flow outbound for ACC (well some of us try) and if we don't get the first ones turning early enough, our little daisy chain could end up in another country! So " when ready" for us will mean either: please turn asap if you are happy to, or I have no need for you to fly the full SID so go wherever. The sooner, the better.

I take in what has been said about the workload regarding the re-routing and will bear it in mind thanks. With regards the older aircraft: just tell us that you would appreciate an initial heading till you find the waypoint. It really isn't a problem. Every now and then we find somebody that doesn't update the FMS as they go around the corner and they end up turning through the direct track to the waypoint, to intercept the track from the original position they commenced the turn from. We will take the turn radius into account, we do not expect the aircraft to keep turning further then the direct track and it can be a bit alarmimng sometimes to see the aircraft turn back towards other departures.

Once again I support the call for jumpseat rides. I hope there is somebody on here that may have some influence in the right places.

Cheers

[ironbutt57]

Not too sure what type of familiarization the ATC folks get on the performance characteristics of the aircraft types, but I agree jumpseat rides might be beneficial under the right circumstances..my recent departure from AUH in a light 767 in trail of a rather full A320 was interesting as well, cleared to 13,000' as normal, then every 45 seconds or so cleared another 2000' higher...this all the way to fl360...a vector for climb was apparently not an option, if the ATC fellow had more familiarity with the performance issues between the two aircraft, then maybe this could have been anticipated/avoided...or very specific, published profile departure procedures to be followed by us, so we can anticipate...either way, suprised parties on either end of the microphone, can lead to headaches for all concerned.....

[Soft Altitude]

I agree with you LDG NO Blue and I would also encourage that you gentlemen from the ATC send out a report to GF when there is a non compliance with your instructions, there is no other way of dealing with the arrogance or sometimes the ignorance of fellow colleagues sitting in the next seat than severe punishment (if the guy can be punished because of his connections).
I have, like many other pilots, been told from the very beginnig, that ATC instructions are there to be complied with, not to be interpreted or disregarded.
From our side, I strongly believe that a few items in the GF SOP are definitely to be changed.
Another issue that I would like you to clarify is what do you mean by "no speed restriction" on departure: do you want us out of there asap or you want us "hovering above the airfield" at minimum clean speed and rocketting up through altitudes? Some guys do it! "No speed restriction, right? let's climb then with 210kts" !!!
Cheers

[popay]

03Rnow30R, well now we are sort of stepping into the area, where, I always found, the coordination between the ATC and pilots should be much better. I am talking about pushing the responsibility for obstacle clearance from ATC to pilot while issuing the instruction "resume own navigation". I have heard it quite often "resume own navigation" while being in IMC and radar vectored and below MSA. It happens a lot in far east areas, quite rarely in ME or lets say in UAE. Saudi is bit different though. I am talking about JED approach vectors. Neither the less, I think it doesn't help anybody to issue such instruction just to get rid of responsibility of keeping clear of obstacles, as many people still blindly rely on you and not necessarily think of who is now responsible of what. While doing so in order to accomodate the traffic flow and issuing the instruction to resume own navigation, ATC still has to give the appropriate instructions. Just to refresh our memory:
8.6.5.5 In terminating radar vectoring of an aircraft, the radar controller shall instruct the pilot to resume own navigation, giving the pilot the aircraft’s position and appropriate instructions, as necessary, in the form prescribed in 8.6.4.2 b), if the current instructions had diverted the aircraft from a previously assigned route.
12.4.1.4 TERMINATION OF RADAR VECTORING a) RESUME OWN NAVIGATION (position of aircraft) (specific instructions); b) RESUME OWN NAVIGATION [DIRECT] (significant point) [MAGNETIC TRACK (three digits) DISTANCE (number) KILOMETRES (or MILES)].
For those of us, sitting in the cockpit some info on accepting verctors:
1.7 RADAR VECTORS
Pilots should not accept radar vectors during departure unless:
a) they are above the minimum altitude(s)height(s) required to maintain obstacle clearance in the event of engine failure. This relates to engine failure between V, and minimum sector altitude or the end of the contingency procedure as appropriate; or b) the departure route is non-critical with respect to obstacle clearance.

4.1.1 Pilot's responsibility
The pilot-in-command is responsible for the safety of the operation and the safety of the aeroplane and of all persons on board during flight time (Annex 6,4.5.1). This includes responsibility for obstacle clearance, except when an IFR flight is being vectored by radar.
Note: When an IFR flight is being vectored by radar, air traffic control (ATC) may assign minimum radar vectoring altitudes which are below the minimum sector altitude. Minimum vectoring altitudes provide obstacle clearance at all times until the aircraft reaches the point where the pilot will resume own navigation. The pilot-in-command should closely monitor the aircraft's position with reference to pilot-interpreted navigation aids to minimize the amount of radar navigation assistance required and to alleviate the consequences resulting from a radar failure. The~pilot-in command should also continuously monitor communications with ATC while being radar vectored, and should immediately climb the aircraft to the minimum sector altitude if ATC does not issue further instructions within a suitable interval, or f a communications failure occurs.
ATC guys, please its not a critics, just my thoughts and refresher for all of us.

oryxbollocks, well with us its a different issue. We need a memo to go to the toilet, just my impression.
Talking about transition ALT LEVEL: in some parts of the world the procedure still presumes a level off at transition LVL setting QNH, QFE and transmitting indicated ALT to ATC for checking purposes, but its a bit overdone to my taste. I do agree though that transition LVL and ALT are for specific purpose there and ALT setting changes should be done at such.
Cheers.

[03Rnow30R]

Popay, thanks for that. I am a little confused about what you want to get across.

If it is that ATC are shifting the responsibility onto the pilot for terrain clearance, then I can only say that it has been the pilots all along. I am refering to on departure, before you are under any radar control. I have not been providing any vectors yet. We have mostly reasonably good visibility here, except for the odd haze or dust storm. I will take the weather into account. We also take obstacles into account, that is why we don't turn guys even on own NAV too early northbound out of SJ, off RWY30, as there is a very tall TV mast in Ajman. We do realize it is the pilots decision, that is why it is "...when ready...". Apparently most of us anyway, once again the previous ATC bollocking about the direct Ranbi thing was not right.

Regarding being vectored under the MSA and then being told to resume own NAV. Firstly, bit of help here please clever people. Do the MSA charts and the minimum radar vectoring altitude charts correspond? I am not sure, as I use the radar one. If not, then is the MSA in Dubai at any point higher than the radar one? I ask this because of the point popay has pointed out in 1.7(a). If we give a vector and you can't except it because you are beneith the MSA, then this is something I would like to highlight to my ATC friends and I have learned something.

Thanks for the refresher about the rules and regs, always good for us all to brush up every now and then.

Soft Altitude, regarding the "no speed restriction" question. It is just that; you can do with the speed what you want. 90% of aircraft will accelerate when they comply with there companies SOP for the minimun altitude (mostly 5000', some 10000'). If I want you to accelerate, I have to exercise positive control of the situation and tell you what speed I want. If you can't do it, please just tell me, so I can make another plan. It might be interesting, if you guys in the different airlines, could just confirm from which altitude you are allowed to accelerate at (ATC instruction) and at which altitude you can do it of your own accord. I know Emirates have two different ones.

Ironbutt57. Most of the ATC's are pretty familiar with aircraft performance, but obviously experience is our chief training officer. Unfortunately you aren't loaded the same for every sector. I have seen a 767 being outclimbed by an A320. Besides trying to guess from the distance you are going, we don't have much to go on. And there is the variable of the operator and the guys driving too. We get a reasonably good indication after watching you climb for the first few thousand feet. The freighters are a surprise every time, you have no idea how full or empty they are. Why you weren't put on a heading, I can only assume the guy had a good reason. There was no official "this is how a 767 performs" in my training, it is all just experience. Guys have to learn somwehere and I agree the jumpseats can only help this.

Cheers

[kingoftheslipstream]

This sounds like a total wind up... where do your numbers come from?

The only time I am responsible for my own separation is when I am cleared for and accept a visual approach. Other than that it is up to ATC when I am in controlled airspace.

[divingduck]

a few Muscat thoughts

Hi all,
I can only echo what many of the ATCO’s have said thus far.
Standard phraseology is there for a reason, it gives us, the ATCO’s the information that we need on first contact. This means it saves time. Time is a very much undervalued part of our profession, we need every bit of it in busy periods.

I have a particular beef with Indian Airlines….can you guys PLEASE listen continuously, not just when you feel like it, on the frequency whilst in the Muscat FIR?
Could you also PLEASE answer with your own callsign, not for everyone else? Oh and whilst I am at it, could you PLEASE use your damned callsign when replying to an instruction.

Oh yes, can everyone PLEASE readback a change of frequency instruction. There is possibly nothing more frustrating than having to call several time to see if you copied the change of freq, and then if no response is received, having to go to the next controller to see if you have checked in…it wastes my time and it wastes his time, and time is something we do not have a whole lot of hereabouts.

This problem is not just endemic to Indian Air, many, many, many, flights check in and then seem to just not be there when we REALLY need to talk to them.
As someone said, it would be a lovely place if we had the time to fill in all the incident reports, but I have to say, a snarl seems to work far better and calls for less paperwork. Lazy bu66er me.
BTW, mine is only one of the two irritated Australian accents you are likely to hear in Muscat.

Whislt I am in rant mode…can everyone reading kindly take note, “Stand by” means hang on a sec, don’t just say whatever you just said again, or you will hear the irritated Aussie accent again.

As to not meeting instructions, I had to apologise to Bombay recently as two Saudi (Haj charters) did not meet their time requirements entering Bombay’s FIR.
I don’t need to point out that Bombay don’t run to a Radar 100NM off the Omani coastline so they actually use your times for procedural separation.
On the ASPUX track, Muscat also lose you quite a long way before ASPUX, so we can’t radar monitor your time requirements, we have to trust that the times you give are actually correct.
Please remember that these requirements are not given for controller amusement, they are to keep a legal minimum longitudinal or vertical separation standard between the two of you.
If you wish to argue that 10 minutes longitudinal is ridiculous, I’m all for it, however we don’t get to pick and choose which standards that we apply, and Bombay certainly don’t.

As ATCO1962 mentioned, on A791 we need to know if you can be level by KANAS, or Tehran will be rightly gunning for us if you wander across several thousand feet below what you read back as a requirement.
Same goes with GFA ex MCT for EGTAL, don’t tell us what you would really love to cross EGTAL at…tell us what you can ACTUALLY do, it makes everyones life simpler, especially these days with so much traffic going on the northern routes. Just remember guys, there is generally someone coming the other way!

Ahhhh, I feel better having got that off my chest!

ps Ironbutt, the ATCO may not have been able to vector you off track, there are lots of cases in the MCT FIR that we just can't take you off track due to oppostie traffic or Military areas...I have no idea what was the case in your circumstance but there are a couple of reasons...apart from the obvious!

If anyone has any questions for Muscat, let us know...we aim to please...

[divingduck]

Kingofslipstream.

I'll admit ignorance, I thought the PIC was responsible for not hitting the hard stuff at all times? At worst case it's 50/50.

If I am wrong I'll happily stand corrected.

[03Rnow30R]

4HP, can we change the title of this thread as it seems to have progressed to a much needed constructive general info exchange and the title doesn't do it justice anymore. Or do we start a new one?

[GlueBall]

Muscat Controllers

Some of the Muscat Controllers get impatient and outright testy with westbound pilots who are unable to immediately establish contact at the eastern boundaries: RASKI, PARAR, and especially at ASPUX, the furthest waypoint which is virtually beyond the limit of VHF reception, even at FL400.

One of the problems is frequency congestion with Mumbai HF as crews are trying to check out with Mumbai Radio. Another problem is that some of the onboard VHF receivers and transmitters are weaker than others and pilots may not immediately make contact with Muscat Center on 128.15, or on 123.95 until several minutes inside Muscat airspace. This is especially true of airplanes that are entering at a lower Flight Level, as VHF reception and transmission is equivalent to line-of-sight.

Adding to the Muscat Controllers' workload are the frequent requests by westbound pilots to advise Mumbai on the landline that "checkout" via HF was not possible.

Muscat Controllers should be aware of these limitations, and they should understand that pilots do not intentionally establish belated contact.

[03Rnow30R]

King? Afraid you lost me. You on about seperation or terrain? If it is seperation, yes we endeavour to provide that depending on airspace classification.

[popay]

03Rnow30R, I will try it again. I am talking about the situation, where the departed aircraft has been identified and is under radar control. Its definitely a different situation then, if under such circumstances the DIR to clearance has been given. Another possible situation is when, again under posit iv radar control, the departing aircraft has been radar vectored off track to accommodate inbound traffic and being cleared DIR to afterwards. SHJ, DXB isn't necessarily a critical airdrome in terms of terrain clearance and it doesn't really apply to you guys, as mentioned before. I was more generalizing from my experience when I was talking about it. At this point it would be interested to talk about responsibility of ATC to provide safe terrain clearance. A pilot is certainly always responsible of safe flight path, whereas ATC has to provide safe terrain clearance while being radar vectored, whether its departure or arrival. My point is its not necessarily helpful to be issued DIR instruction, while being below MSA and IMC only because the responsibility for safe terrain clearance shifts to pilot with such instruction. I have experienced that in other parts of the world, that's why I mention it here.
Talking about minimum radar vectoring altitude charts, i don't think we can use them to navigate safely below MSA as we cant definitely determine air crafts position only based on FMS (subject to shift) and radar vectors chart. I think, our reference is MSA based on NAV AID. You might wonna have a look at that thread here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=204144&page=2
Finally i don't think, many people do really consider the aspect of possible engine failure on departure between V1 and MSA in regards of radar vectors.
Regarding speed limit QR does have the limitation < 250 below 5000 ft.
CHeers.

[03Rnow30R]

Thanks popay, got it that time. Thanks too for the info.

[Dct no speed]

Testing one two.....

[ATCO1962]

Glueball.

You know, I think that most Muscat controllers know the limitations of our equipment better than you think. After all, we deal with it minute by minute, day by day, etc.

The testiness that creeps into our voices is usually reserved for those pilots who do exactly what you say, who wait for a frequency change instruction from a busy Bombay Radio when they are heading at 500mph towards our boundary and still fail to change freq after they've crossed the boundary. You wouldn't believe the number of aircraft who begin to call us 50-100nm inside our airspace and wonder why we don't display the temperament of a spring lamb bouncing merrily around a green field!! You need to know that, regardless of what Bombay can get through to you, call Muscat at or before our airspace.

Thank you for reminding us all of VHF reception limitations. We must have forgotten all that. Actually, we know where most of our reception "holes" are and usually work around that, once again, reserving our wrath for those who we know aren't listening after calling someone nearby who clearly gets us. Occasionally, we know that there are other gremlins at work and some of our guys aren't so adept at understanding and managing multiple tranceiver sites so I apologise to all of you who know you've been listening out but still got an earful from us for apparently not listening out.

With respect to responsibility for terrain clearance, I know what the book says but I will still continue, in controlled airspace, as an ATCO, to provide the terrain separation unless I clearly place that responsibility on the pilot. As pilots, you should most definitely keep good situational awareness and if you don't like the altitude assigned, question it. In 25 years of doing this, I've seen enough close calls because of varying expectations as to who provides terrain sep to ensure that I will do it for you because I usually know the terrain better than most of the pilots. Sadly, we don't routinely get your company procedure climb out information so we don't necessarily know what you're going to do after take off.

Take care!

[Dct no speed]

Im thinking hmmmmmm..... what if say under own navigation ,the odd donkey decide to let go and say the plane turned left and end up scaring the tourist or even worse the Big Boss in the Burj.....

Will the ATC be :

a) blamed
b) held responsible or
c) blamend and held responsible
for issueing the own navigation, knowing the a/c is below radar terrain? Just think of it before wacking them left next time.

To the drivers airframe out there: (specially those that "keep discovering")

You guys might want to listen to the encredibale RT used or rather not used by the guys flying the cargo and using your company's callsign. "Rogger" is used to acknowledge frequency changes and "Copy" when instructed to change levels. The use of a callsign is normally an optional extra as I am a voice recognition specialist and always should know who is speaking to me without them using their callsign.

Luckily they only have boxes in the back, so at least like some of the operators around here, they don't insist on telling us how many passengers they have on board rather than giving us their levels. I only need the pax when we have to get the emergency guys out, so please don't tell us how many passengers you have ! I need the level to verify it within 200ft.

As for complying with ATC instructions: Do you ignore warning lights or sort of fly according to the ops manual? If a ATC instruction is not clear make sure don't just assume ! Do you realise that if you bust your level the ATC, that has 0 control over the plane gets suspended ? If another sector is effected by this level bust they also go to the bench! Replacements are a bit thin at the moment so check those levels boys.

To the gentleman that asked me for rwy 12 at 01h30 in the morning when 30 was in use ! You must be new around here ! Dubai is a bit busy for that and the fact that we only have one rwy at the moment makes your request seem a bit ,well ......RIDICULOUS !!!!!!!!!!

Always giving

Dct No Speed

[Trader]

Excellent thread. As a pilot I agree that some of the RT in the area is atrocious. Poor initial training and laziness is to blame I think.

Some ideas for controllers:

1. As has been mentioned, it is difficult to slow down and go down. If you tell us what you need more/first it would make life earsier. ie. "Descend to 5000'then slow to 190". Or the reverse.

2. There is nothing worse then descending like a bugger in anticipation of a base turn only to be left low 30 miles out (DXB this happens a lot). If you tell me that I am number 3 and you will turn me about 20 mile out I will co-ordinate my descent accordingly. The TCAS is a good tool for this as is having an ear out on the freq but many times doesn't always work.