Damn, I'm working for the wrong company......:ugh:

Well none of us were there so who knows what really happened...... my only comment is that the EK pilot wasn't exactly easy to understand. We aussie's always talk too fast and many people comment that we are difficult to understand. Especially in this part of the world, slowing down your radio calls is very important.

I trust he wasn't wearing baby doll pyjamas :E

Agreed. Recollect story of Texan listening to machine gun clearance delivery to previous aircraft and transmitting: "***** ready for clearance an' ah write as slow as ah talk.":ok:

..For the majority of us,listening to the video audio in post #1, it sounds an appalling lack of SA...plenty of clues,after the initial mistake...( which we all can,and do make)
When do we need to be giving our utmost attention to ATC..I would say,obviously at all times,but especially in climb and descent....
"They may have been distracted"!..huh..that is what the simulator is supposed to teach us...
To me this is about discipline...and,how not to operate...and I'm mister average,trying to improve...:eek:

And,lets not get on to the subject of the ever increasing omission of the words,"Flight Level"in climb and descent clearances,by both pilots and controllers.
I'm guessing that there is an ever increasing lack of imagination of what can go wrong,amongst us!..Frightening!

Perhaps complacency is an appropriate word.

brakedwell, Yawstring

Careful guys! You might run into the self appointed pprune police (who might refer again to what exactly pprune means).

Apparently we should never speculate on these pages (review meaning of rumour ....), we should never mention any opinion (apparently it's like something everyone has ...) before there has been a thorough investigation (that is certainly neither tainted nor vetted by the participating companies, manufacturers, authorities, thus extremely trustworthy ....), we should never point at an eventual mistake of any colleagues, because we don't know what was heard in the cockpit, but it is legitimate to incriminate ATC, because apparently we know exactly (through the same tape!) what the controller had heard .....

i know what some on here mean by that. It's Monday morning quarterbacking. And this is open to criticism, sure enough.
But that's all it is on these pages, or it would be a NTSB/FAA homepage (or any equivalent)!

Sure enough we can't trust tapes or other witnessing media 100%, but can we trust reports from involved agencies? I have once been involved with a serious incident a couple of years before and the report does not come close enough to the truth I had experienced. Even today there is still speculation about the incident, almost as vividly as the first day after, with similar dissenting contributions and a lot of voices trying to shut the others up for apparently not having the full picture. Who has?

We never have. But as long as these threads are rumours among professional pilots, we should be allowed to speculate, to have an opinion, to put it on here. You can always dissent, contradict and have another one, but as to today we are not in Turkey, Iran or North Korea. We are free to do so, otherwise close down this site.

I truly believe that we can learn in reading dissenting opinions if we don't just cry them down because we don't like them.

Another skygod in our midst!

Tell me, how art thou?

Glofish, many years ago similar incidents occurred in the same airspace as where this event happened. It always occurred because the aircraft at top of descent was at the limit of VHF range. Sometimes what they thought they heard was not what was said. When being the departing aircraft I caught the error in the clearance, and asked ATC to confirm it. ATC never seemed to catch it, perhaps the same issue? Anyhow, a new procedure was introduced then that the departing aircraft would be given a radial to fly to his right of the airway, and the arriving aircraft kept on the airway (best not confuse due to poor radio right?). This gave both lateral and vertical separation. Worked a treat. But now the wheel has turned.

We can complain about ATC as they did not check the clearance read back by the crew. The air Seychelles Crew heard the wrong readback and said nothing. Who knows how much of the traffic information they heard. Perhaps only the lower when passing bit? Dunno as I wasn't there. But I do know this Crew and the air Seychelles Crew has flown around the world a few times before this and I haven't been reading about them before. It would seem the EK Crew flew the clearance they believed was theirs. TCAS wise the air Seychelles Crew had more warning as they were expecting the Ek Crew to stop at 380, the Ek Crew would have only noticed the other aircraft still climbing after they had already leveled (air Seychelles reported at 359 right?). Remember airbus TCAS can display 9000 feet above when in above (used in climb) and 9000 feet below when in below (used in descent). The 380 TCAS would have a range advantage 100nm instead of 40nm, but in this case that is mute as the climb above the expected 350 would have happened at a much closer range. The 380 was 2000 feet lower to where air Seychelles was expecting it to be. The 330 was just crossing the expected ALT at the same time.

No one is golden here. But the incident would not have happened if a tried and tested procedure was not abandoned and if ATC had done his job to correct a wrongly readback clearance. The fact it was not corrected by ATC helped confirm to the EK Crew they were flying the correct clearance. Which we armchair legends know they were not.

What Don said.

Another member of the "Don" > good post society here. I think I will need to buy him a beer before too long as I'm agreeing too often with Don's point of view(s).

J

Don
Good post, I agree, compared to others …..

But I still have a bone or two to chew:

1. You state about ATC:

and about EK 703:

It so seems that our crew gets the benefit of the doubt of maybe having misunderstood a transmission. But do you give the same benefit to ATC?
Reading your statement it seems not.
Isn’t that a tad unfair towards the controller?

2. Let’s read the following transmissions:

EK acknowledges the traffic information with a “roger”, indicating to the controller that they have understood. There was no further clarification or other action. The traffic information however appears quite clear.
I can only think of two explanations:
Either they did not comprehend the traffic information, which would indicate a poor situational awareness, or they did not understand it and simply said “roger” to carry on, which would indicate a dangerous complacency (by the way, they never reported any sighting or passing).
Any uncertainty should have been clarified, any correct comprehension should have triggered a reconfirmation of the levels cleared.

You finally say:

I agree, and I have never pretended that this would not happen to me or other Bruce’s!! But this should not prevent us to try to analyse the event objectively, for the sake of enhancing safety, even without a (most probably very, very late) final report.

C,mon Glo. You saying that the Mauritian CAA (GCAA, DGCA, xxAA whatever it may be) will be slower than some agencies closer to our hub?

Yes, and in the mean time we're still waiting for anything from our 521 ......

So Glofish goes from making the assumption that a YouTube audio that we heard means they heard

Post 19:
"The easiest one was when HEARING the clearance for the opposing aircraft to climb to FL370. The next by the apparently not observing the oncoming and conflicting TCAS symbol."

They heard ? Really? As if he knows what they heard or saw.

"Simply these two omissions point to an irresponsible lack of SA. "

To now:

---
"Don
Good post, I agree, compared to others …..

Quote:
"No one is golden here
I agree, and I have never pretended that this would not happen to me or other Bruce’s!! But this should not prevent us to try to analyse the event objectively, for the sake of enhancing safety, even without a (most probably very, very late) final report."

---

Objectively! But apparently HE knows what they 'heard' because HE heard it on YouTube. So PC of him now from the opinionated bull shine he was spewing earlier.

And Jack shidt has gone from:

"I would say that it's poor listening "actively" skills and not properly processing/understanding/questioning what's being said is more likely the issue here."

To:

"I think I will need to buy him a beer before too long as I'm agreeing too often with Don's point of view(s)."

Don said:

"No one is golden here. But the incident would not have happened if a tried and tested procedure was not abandoned and if ATC had done his job to correct a wrongly readback clearance. The fact it was not corrected by ATC helped confirm to the EK Crew they were flying the correct clearance. Which we armchair legends know they were not."

---

Subtle boys - two course reversals advertised as straight in.

Funny how that happens...I'll never understand why pilots are so quick to judge and/or vilify other pilots when they should know better than anyone that the information from the public or media is suspect at best when it comes to aviation.

Glofish, I don't think it is too hard on ATC. When the EK Crew get a transmission about the traffic they can't understand they say it's unreadable and asked for it again.
When the EK Crew read back the wrong level ATC says nothing. So if he didn't hear the read back he should have asked for a read back of a clearance. If he did hear it he should have corrected it. If he was unsure of what he heard he should have said so and asked them to say again. By not saying anything he confirmed to the crew their read back was correct.
All the time air Seychelles heard all of that and said nothing.

The traffic information call by ATC was at first unreadable by the crew. Remember edge of VHF range. They tell the controller this and ask him to say again. The controller does so, but at the same speed as the first Non readable transmission. You have been there I am sure. You listen in hard, make out what you can, look across at the other pilot who says “”lower after crossing” . Sounds reasonable and makes sense. You reply Roger. After all you read back your clearance and no-one corrected it right?

He might have understood 380, just as EK might have understood 360 before. Both might have fallen into the trap of "hearing" what they expected.
Bad reception on edge of VHF range goes both ways .....

He might have heard it, but might thought he heard 380 .....
He probably heard it and might have heard 380 if he did not ask for a correction .....

He might have been sure having heard 380 ......

Absolutely true. Could be "hearing" what he expected or complacency. I am not defending him, but at the same time not simply putting the whole blame on him. The benefit of the doubt should remain for both sides, as the doubt of complacency.

Again, VHF range, bad reception should be taken into account for them as well. At the time of the initial clearance ATC to EK, they might not have known on what airway EK flew, so could at that time not detect any conflict.

We are turning in circles, i know, and i am not easily and unilaterally putting blame on fellow pilots, please! I am however not ready to simply put it on ATC as well. There were sufficient clues for both sides to deconflict and they were not seized. Commanders are responsible for safe flights and controllers for separation. Both failed to do their job to some extent. 35+ years of world wide aviation and 10+ years in EK give me a certain picture though when listening to the tape and i stand by my opinion.

But Glofish you used words like “irresponsible lack of SA” and incompetent” when referring to the EK Crew. But now you seem to understand that all is not black and white.

On the positive side Don he's displaying flexibility... The term "Roger" has no place in R/T, unless Roger is your buddy and you say hello

Roger is nobodies buddy PJ. He is the guy who drinks your beer and throws up in your car.

Sorry Praise Jebus, ROGER is still in the AIP in Australia as a useable term.

ROGER: I have received all of your last transmission (under NO circumstances to be used in reply to a question requiring READBACK or a direct answer in the affirmative or negative).

Source: Australian AIP GEN 3.4 - 20

It was also part of UK R/T exam IIRC...

Roger Wilco!

However - where has the very annoying 'charlie charlie' come from?

No need to be sorry Icarus, Roger may well be in the AIPs but it is so misused I stick by my comment, it has no place in RT.

Not sure whitey but I believe he can't surf.

Charlie x 2 is from maritime signals, the flags used to communicate stand for individual letters. In addition some flags have a single word meaning as well, it happens that the flag that means YES is the "C" flag or of course Charlie. (I'll mention TCAS, and SA to add relevance to this thread)

Can any of the Bus guys shed light on what these 380 headset/noise canceling ASR's are all about.

Specifically what is the issue?

Some aircraft have the noise cancelling headsets, and some don't. Personally I find that the readability of the non-noise cancelling to be way down on the proper noise cancelling models! Many ASRs have been filed but still the company can't find a few dirhams to get the decent headsets:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Of course PJ; I didn't think of maritime flags. And I still use 'roger' to indicate that I've understood a message that doesn't pertain to a clearance or similar:ok:

There's much rogering going on at EK

Not just in AIPs, but it's ICAO standard phraseology.

"Instructions transmitted are to be complied with and, in most cases, should be read back to reduce the chance of any ambiguity or misunderstanding, e.g. ‘G-ABCD, taxi to the apron via taxiway Charlie’. Chapter 2 specifies those instructions that are to be read back in full. However, if the instruction is short, clear and unambiguous, acknowledgment of the instruction using standard phraseology such as ‘Roger’ (I have received all your last transmission) or ‘Wilco’ (I understand your message and will comply with it) is preferred for the sake of brevity in the use of radiotelephony transmission time." - UK Radiotelephony Manual CAP 413

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413v21_6.pdf
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/115.pdf
https://contentzone.eurocontrol.int/...y/Default.aspx

So yes, "Roger" has a place in RT. As long as mandatory items are read back, it is not misused. ("Charlie, Charlie" however,... that's just nonsense, unless you sail a ship.)

Don't tell me that when ATC tells you: "Traffic, 10 o'clock, passing left to right, climbing to FL360, 1000 feet below you, Airbus 320", you read back the entire message?

I assume that's for me Bus man so no, I don't read back the entire message. I respond with my call sign to indicate I have heard and understood the message. Roger is a redundant statement . Sorry for the drift

Some pilots who have no idea about radio telephony procedures or understanding of the ICAO accepted terms sadly.

Charlie Charlie is not such a term.

But No Noise Cancelling on the Noisy Tractor?
 

At the risk of thread drift, I'm curious why the A380 whose flight deck is known to be very quiet, require noise cancelling headsets and it seems to be an "Air Safety" event when one is not found,

Yet, on the famously noisy Tractor flight deck, there are rarely noice cancelling headsets, and yet there are never any ASR from the Boeing side for this matter.

Not trying to start a flame-war of A vs. B, I'm just honestly curious about this seemingly ironic matter, the quiet airplane gets the noise cancelling?

The majority of 777s have no interphone system fitted(somebody thought it was cool to fly around like John Wayne did with just one headset used to listen to ATC).
The Company should first find a few bucks to retrofit the whole fleet with hot mic feature.

The problem is one pilot will have noise cancelling and the other won't. 380 ops are done on intercom. It isn't undoable but it isn't the way it was designed to be done. If the issue isn't raised it won't be fixed.

There is much more to this story and we've all been in this situation before. Let's not judge based on conjecture and some u tube video produced by someone with obvious ties to the Seychelles.

Thanks for the clarification Bus driver man. Good intel

Another threat drift: Can some of you guys, more specifically on the 777 move the mic a little further away from your mouth? Thanks - the rest of us trying to understand you.

Noise level
 

https://www.wired.com/2008/12/a380-is-so-quie/

"Emirates 703". Nothing more needed or required.



On climb-out with gear up and maximum climb power (no de-rate) the cockpit is about 80-82db. Noise cancelling headsets are not needed, especially when most wear it over one ear.

The germophobes always pull those foam things off the mics. They seem to get full of particles etc.. you know, food, garlic, grease, snot, you name it and guys eventually peel them off, then the transmissions are distorted. Listen to the airwaves, EK R/T is renowned for it. Worst part is some of the guys actually make their PAs with the boom mike, don't seem to have heard of the handset.

Then how will all the yanks answer yes/no questions?