DXB Tower RT

[ruserious]

I departed Dubai yesterday as usual in the middle of the night. It was pretty quiet by normal standards, but the controller on the tower frequency used the terms, "expedite", "immediate" and "late landing clearance" several times, during our relatively short time on his frequency. In fact I can't think of one transmission he made which did not contain one of these terms. The closest any aircraft was on approach was 1500' on line up (don't you love TCAS) and the latest landing clearance was given at 900'.
Is there some way we can get these terms used only when they are appropriate. You can go to pretty well any other busy (er) airport and never hear them used. It detracts from their utility to use them all the time, as pilots will think the phrases are normal and the one day you want them to do something urgently, they will be less liable to think something is REALLY urgent.
In this controllers case it made him sound self important and slightly stressed, which is never a good thing to hear in a controllers voice.
Of course not all of the controllers here do this, but it is really apparent, that it happens more than anywhere else.

[SecurID]

don't you love TCAS

I never thought I'd see the day when someone wrote that! Oh, you mean the on board Traffic alerting system?! Oh, now I understand! Thought you meant something else...

[my hands are tied]

Maybe at other airports pilots don't think that because their company is paying a landing fee it gives them a time share right to the runway.

If high speed taxiways were actually used as high speed taxi ways for exiting the runway rather than coming to a virtual standstill prior to vacating the rwy, pilots didn't try imposing their own wake seperation when following another heavy on dep, didn't stop on the rwy side of a holding point and report rwy vacated and generally took heed of the request on the ATIS for minimum rwy occupancy time then maybe ATC wouldn't feel the need to cajole tfc with requests to expedite etc.

There have been a large number of unecessary go arounds due to tfc being very slow in vacating the rwy or not rolling when been cleared for an immediate take off, which puts extra pressure on an already busy situation.

Please remember every time an ATCO decides to try an get a dep between 2 arrivals he is putting his licence on the line, and is totaly reliant on pilots complying with his instructions....and you can guess what sort of response we'd get from the GCAA if we had a loss of Rwy seperation because no urgency was shown in expediting the tfc by means of the use of immediate, no delay etc.

[Mack Tuck]

Clearly an ATCO response and just as clearly another reason why you need to sit in a cockpit or a centre in London or Frankfurt and listen to how it should be done. Dubai is NOT busy; it is a piece of old doddle. And as for wake turbulence; give me a break... look at the wake turbulence criteria and STOP clearing us to go without the required separation. Too bloody right pal... I will sit there on the runway if cleared to line up without calling ready and sit there until I have the required separation as its me not YOU who will carry the can if it goes pear shaped. Wally!

[jackbauer]

Mack Tuck, very well said, these guys need to see how 3 mile sep on final really works in LHR before crying about how their licence is on the line every time they release an aircraft. Comments by "My Hands Are Tied" are the sign of burn out in an ATCO. CDG FRA and LHR make DXB look like a bunch of scardey cats. No doubt there will be the usual cries of how pilots don't do as they are told but the fact remains DXB is NOT busy.

[ruserious]

MHAT, I don't have a problem with the use of the terminology when it is required, its just hugely overused in Dubai, not by all controllers by any means. The newer (if you know what I mean) controllers are much more likely to use it, so it is really a training issue.
Go to the UK and listen to calm, unemotive, precise ATC RT and you would know what a safety advantage it is. Just as you guys want us to do it right, we in turn respond well to a calm, precise environment.
This forum has a lot of utility to educate both sides of the operational fence, hence I raised the phraseology issue, not to score points or get controllers on the defensive.

[watertheflowers]

Another point of view.

As a frequent observer of EK flight decks, mostly every other sector, I tend to agree with a lot of what 'my hands are tied' writes.

As the radio operator, I am frequently embarrassed by the crew members who insist on coming to a halt before commencing the take off roll, and similarly reducing to 15 kts or less before vacating at a high speed turn off.

Another thread commented recently on the slack R/T disipline in this area, once again, couldn't agree more. Seems to be a large group who think that its not macho to follow standard R/T procedures. Listen out to CX, LH, BA, SQ, QF, even Air India, and learn something.

Around two years ago, LHR asked all operators to conduct monitored continuous descent approaches into LHR, then published the results. EK was the 3rd worst operator with a 27% success rate.

Some 'humble pie' to be eaten, I think.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

CDG in Paris has 1,400 movements a day with 2 pairs of parallel runways. Dubai has 600 movements a day currently working with 1 runway. ie. Dubai has 600 daily movements per day per runway, while CDG has 350 daily movements per day per runway. I am not a Dubai Approach controller by the way. Hardly a doddle though, so why don't you all try showing some respect for a change.

[EffohX]

I witnessed what was quite probably worst airmanship I’ve seen in some time last night when the pilot of a widebody aircraft landing at Dubai was told to exit at N6 and he wanted to take it through to the end to turn right for a shorter taxi to the stand.


On finals he asked a second time to be allowed to take it through to the end, saying he would expedite clearing the runway. Tower refused and repeated that he should take N6. (All incoming traffic had been holding and at least one non-local aircraft in the sequence behind the aircraft in question was making it very clear that he was getting very close to minimum fuel.)


Tower directed a widebody to line up behind the landing aircraft and be ready immediate. The pilot of the landing aircraft stood on his brakes, bringing the aircraft to a near stop quite some distance from N6, and then proceeded at what I can only describe as a leisurely pace towards the N6 exit. What astounded me was that he then proceeded to lecture the Tower controller – on ****ing Tower frequency - that he would have taken less time on the runway if he’d been allowed to take it through to the end. This prevented the controller from giving the departing aircraft his takeoff clearance, (not that he could have for the first half of the conversation, for the landing aircraft was still on the runway).


It was quite obvious that the landing pilot was attempting to make a point in being slow in clearing the runway, and also clear that and his extended transmission as he taxied clear delayed the departing aircraft from taking off, which meant that the next aircraft in the landing sequence was forced to go around.


Piss poor effort in my humble opinion, and I hope the person involved is very embarrassed at his behaviour in retrospect. He should also consider himself very lucky if the ATCO concerned hasn’t made a complaint to his company, because if he has, I suspect it will be a very unpleasant tea a bikkies he has with his fleet captain.


***


Quick change of subject: to the DXB Tower controllers. Gents, at most other airports, the ATCOs are quite comfortable in allowing an aircraft to continue the approach down to 200 feet and even lower before making them go around because the runway if still occupied. (In Heathrow, for instance, which Dubai is fast approaching in levels of traffic at certain times of day, it’s not unheard of to be given clearance to land in the flare – around 50 feet.)


I can only assume you must have a set of rules in place demanding that you instruct a landing aircraft to go around if the runway is still occupied when the landing aircraft passes 1000 feet and that sometimes, some of you allow that rule to ‘creep’ just a little. I’ve certainly be forced to go around on more than one occasion at Dubai in circumstances I would describe as totally unnecessary (twice now at around 900 feet with the aircraft ahead well clear of the runway as we passed over it in the missed approach).


Certainly most EK aircraft, and I suspect most other carriers operating into Dubai, are frequently arriving these days with not a lot of fuel in reserve, and an unnecessary go around can leave crews very close to the line in fuel reserves.


***


In closing, can I open the Dubai vectoring can of worms again? Please put arriving aircraft into a hold close in rather than the low level, too slow, cross country navexes we suffer now. (A holding pattern over Sharjah VOR has already been suggested in an earlier thread.) I have learnt to my cost that I have to allow as much as 800 kgs more for final vectoring at Dubai than at any other airport I operate into. (Hint, anything under 230 knots for a 777-300 at or near max landing weight involves extending flap, when the fuel flows spike up considerably. Anything under 170 knots demands final flap, which involves lowering the gear, at that sends the fuel flows into orbit, particularly if we have to fly level, as we all too often have to from 20 odd miles out.) A hold over Sharjah with a minimum hold height of around 7000 to 6000’ with a descending S turn onto a 10 mile final (or less) for either runway would be infinitely better than what we do now.

[RustyNail]

DXB Arrivals

For some reason holding in the ME is a sign of weakness by local controllers, not of air traffic management. If I see holding used I would die of shock.
Remember, if these are local ME controllers then they havn't got the same exposure to heavy traffic that expats get in real airports and traffic management is 20 years ahead of their time, they only know what they are taught here, the same gets passed down from generation to generation.

Peace out !!

[ruserious]

I am not disputing or debating the fact that pilots can and do increase controller workload and anxiety levels, that is addressed elsewhere in this forum.
One of the deep joys we have as pilots is that we get to see a lot of different airports and experience widely varying standards of ATC. The level of extra and unnecessary chatter in Dubai from controllers is tangible.
My point stays the same, inappropriate extra emotive verbiage serves no purpose, except to raise every-ones anxiety levels, clutter up the airwaves and as a result reduce levels of situation awareness. It probably has something to do with the number of go-arounds as well.

[typhoonpilot]

Originally Posted by EffohX

(Hint, anything under 230 knots for a 777-300 at or near max landing weight involves extending flap, when the fuel flows spike up considerably. Anything under 170 knots demands final flap, which involves lowering the gear, at that sends the fuel flows into orbit, particularly if we have to fly level, as we all too often have to from 20 odd miles out.) A hold over Sharjah with a minimum hold height of around 7000 to 6000’ with a descending S turn onto a 10 mile final (or less) for either runway would be infinitely better than what we do now.

Yeah, I'm glad you said that. Drives me nuts that the ATCOs ( who generally do a good job ) can't seem to get this little fact straight, no matter how many times we ask for some extra speed on the 220-180-160 knots assigned.


TP

[BurglarsDog]

Interesting thread.

Word for the day:

"Symbiosis" - the relation between two different species of organisms that are interdependent; each gains benefits from the other.

Methinks that more liaison between "species" is required!

Do ATC have any one who liaises with the customer - or vice versa?

For some drivers; consider visiting the Emirates Aviation College next time you are over the sims; after all its where home grown Dubai Tower controllers are hatched!!

DogGone.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

For the hundredth time on here I will say, this is exactly why we need to bring back famil flights. A couple of rides in the jump seat each year will give both sides of the fence a chance to understand each others job, and most importantly ask the questions that need to be asked face to face. Again any pilot who wants to come visit an ATC facility will always be more than welcome.

[ruserious]

For the hundredth time on here I will say, this is exactly why we need to bring back famil flights

Yep, no argument on that one, just wish our various managements would listen

[EffohX]

At the risk of (continuing the) thread creep, can I make a suggestion to Dubai ATC?


Let’s have a (?)30 day trial of ‘close in’ holding, using the PINGO hold for incoming traffic when 12 is in use and OSTIN when 30 is the active. I know this might involve a bit of re-arranging tracks for departing traffic, but surely that wouldn’t be insurmountable.


Stack the incoming aircraft in the respective holds, make the minimum holding height 5000’ so the tracking ex the hold can be a continuous descent. This will allow all incoming aircraft to remain in a clean configuration until they leave the hold, (saving an enormous amount of fuel over the current practices) and not have to dirty up while flying level as we have to do so often now.


I think in the long term a holding pattern over Sharjah is probably the better idea, in that the one hold would serve both runways and would make for minimum disruption and delay if the runway changed, (as if frequently does during the peak traffic period around midnight). But that would involve a lot of paperwork, so let’s take it one step at a time and try the PINGO/OSTIN idea for a month or so.


Anyone else out there think this would be a good idea, or at least an improvement on the current situation? I’ve given up writing reports to management, so this forum is probably the one place where something might be achieved. I believe that if enough people responded here with suggestions on improvements to the current system, (which is NOT working well), someone from Dubai ATC who reads this site might pass the word on to someone in authority who is willing to admit there is room for improvement.


***


Liaison Flights
Someone mentioned the need for more ATCO/aircrew liaison. I understand that ATCO liaison flights have been approved and will soon be introduced… but I’d be willing to bet today’s bonus (whatever it is) that there’ll be a sting in the tail of that, like they’ll have to do them on their days off and pay for their own accommodation if the trip involves an overnight or some such. You can guarantee that would be the case if the roles were reversed and it was the pilots visiting ATC.

[throw a dyce]

Ruserious,
At Hong Kong at CLK in single runway days,we used a cut off of 3 miles for the inbound and positively rolling for the outbound.This worked well with the large number of heavies,to get the ICAO runway length.(3900m)The inbound got landing clearance at about 1mile ish.
At HK we had to increase the gap slightly,because of the Cargo a/c sometimes using the whole runway.Also a/c stopping on high speed exits was a real problem.
In the UK,you can get later landing clearances,as the outbound just has to be airborne and not passed the upwind end of the runway.Also some places can land after the departing with certain criteria.Also we can't use immediate departures with heavies.They obviously can't move fast and there are concerns about a/c at the hold behind.
As far as vortex goes I will note the minute and second that an a/c rolls to get the 120sec,or 180 secs behind.Also waiting until the previous departed has passed 4 miles outbound will give 120secs vortex.
I would never tell an aircraft to vacate at a specific exit.It's just asking for burst tyres,or hot brakes.We often used vacate at the end,and it was just as quick as they didn't come to a screaming halt.A lot less grief for the engines and brakes but the pilot has to play the game and not think he has squatters rights.
Anyway I don't work at Dubai(Deemed not worthy by Serco),but that's what we did,with the ICAO rules we had.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Effohx, as ATC'ers we would expect to have to do it on our days off, that's a given. We would also expect that we would have to sort out our own accomodation if it was an overnight stay. Most likely though it wouldn't be overnight, and it would be a there and back in the same day affair, eg. to Tehran and back, or to Beirut and back.

I know just like us, you guys have a busy schedule and days off are precious, but if you ever find yourself cruising past the Carrefour on Airport Rd in Abu Dhabi why not pop in and sit with the Area guys for a while and you might understand our side of things a little better.

Good luck with the attempt to get close in holding in Dubai TMA. We have pilots ask us during the fogged out mornings and we ask DB TMA and unless they are willing to break their own rules and put their licence on the line they have no choice but to say no to close in holding. It's been suggested in the past, but it has always been iron clad that all aircraft are to hold with us on Area at DESDI or BUBIN at or above 10,000ft. We would love nothing more than to offload a few to our friends in Dubai believe me!

[Fubaar]

ANSA, I heard that overnights (nights away) were to be allowed for the ATCOs on their famil. flights, with some restrictions (which I’ve forgotten) on the max number of nights away allowed (probably one). But this was verbal – I haven’t seen anything in writing.

A group of senior pilots doing a CRM course late last year brought up the idea of re-introducing famil. flights with the Chief of Training and he agreed. The idea of getting you away with us on an overnight is that probably far more will be achieved over a (non alcoholic, of course) beer than will be on the flight deck during a quick out and back-er.

On the subject of close in holding, let me be the first to cast my vote in favour of the trial. Surely it would make things easier for the ATCOs too? It would certainly save the companies a fortune in fuel if we were allowed to remain clean until starting the final approach, (which never happens now), and it would completely do away with the present situation where you’re often left with no option but to drag it in with gear down and maintaining 3000’ from as far as 20 miles out. (Mod: can we make the thread into a poll?)

With all their carry-on about saving fuel, I can’t believe Emirates haven’t insisted on something like this idea years ago. Could it be that the people who keep urging us to save fuel at all costs very seldom find themselves arriving in Dubai in the midnight or 6am rush hour?

[Mack Tuck]

Come on fellas (and I can say this in EK as we are all sitting on a pair of pills (hopefully)) if ATC give a speed constraint that is unacceptable for whatever reason tell them what speed you CAN maintain. Accept the extra track miles and still save gas. The ATCOs I know are good buggers but dont have an intimate knowledge of limits on our airplanes. p.s. assigned speeds are +- 10 kts so forget about pulling selected speed if managed gives you that range.