RT
I hope it isn't chaired by a FJ GD/P - they're often the worst offenders when it comes to correct RT procs, in my experience! The same people who moaned about the brief period when we briefly went back to QNH at military aerodromes.
"After landing traffic, line up and wait" is entirely reasonable and safe. And your GD/P needs to be told "Yes you WILL have to accept being told to wait!". Again, this shows poor understanding of the needs of others. The aircraft on final who hears "After landing traffic, line up and wait" being passed to a military aircraft approaching the holding position at least knows that the mil. aircraft won't try to take-off without a further ATC clearance.
You need a ME QFI with experience of both civil and military aerodromes worldwide to chair such a group. Preferably one who has some FJ experience.
"After landing traffic, line up and wait" is entirely reasonable and safe. And your GD/P needs to be told "Yes you WILL have to accept being told to wait!". Again, this shows poor understanding of the needs of others. The aircraft on final who hears "After landing traffic, line up and wait" being passed to a military aircraft approaching the holding position at least knows that the mil. aircraft won't try to take-off without a further ATC clearance.
You need a ME QFI with experience of both civil and military aerodromes worldwide to chair such a group. Preferably one who has some FJ experience.
Gentleman Aviator
You need a ME QFI with experience of both civil and military aerodromes worldwide to chair such a group. Preferably one who has some FJ experience.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The call isn't for the benefit of the Air Trafficker alone, it is to help others plan their circuit.
Aside, I agree Beags.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hiq et Ubique
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this talk of pointless posts - rubbish!!!!!
About time we saw something for discussion which doesn't include 'I hate the RAF/movers/non-aircrew (FC's) etc'.
However, not being of the two winged variety, I cannot add any wealth to the original topic.
So bring on the discussions I say, no matter how trivial.
About time we saw something for discussion which doesn't include 'I hate the RAF/movers/non-aircrew (FC's) etc'.
However, not being of the two winged variety, I cannot add any wealth to the original topic.
So bring on the discussions I say, no matter how trivial.
a FJ GD/P - they're often the worst offenders when it comes to correct RT procs, in my experience! The same people who moaned about the brief period when we briefly went back to QNH at military aerodromes.
"It is interesting to note that the RAF always did approach and landings with the airfield QNH set, whereas civil operators used QFE settings"
And today we have almost the complete reverse!
When the last QFE/QNH debate took place the FJ and (to a lesser extent) RW fleets did not do a significant amount of flying away from the "comfort zone" of UK Mil ATC procedures. Surely now that everyone is a bit more worldy-wise we can change some of our anachronistic and parochial habits. It speaks volumes that QFE is only common at UK Mil aerodromes and in former Soviet countries. Adherence to QFE as our UK standard not only continues to breed less terrain aware crews, but also goes against the maxim of "train-like-you-fight". To me, it makes sense to inculcate our young crews with QNH right from the start of their careers. Instead, we expect them to adapt whist on ops, in somewhere hilly, where people are trying to kill you (that just the ATC!) I am told that the strongest resisitance to QNH came from the CFS world (for teaching PFLs etc). The worst story I heard was a former Woodvale Stn Cdr who decreeed that, as there was only about 1 mb difference, QFE would be used in the local operating area vice regional QNH. Ergo, a whole generation of UAS students who thougt that QFE was perfectly valid at 20-30 nm from the aerodrome.
As we become a smaller and smaller part of total UK traffic surely there becomes a point where even procedures that have reasonable logic (roll vs touch-and-go) become less defensible simply on the grounds that they are non-standard.
And who has been teaching pilots to drop the "Clear ..." from all the clearances?
As we become a smaller and smaller part of total UK traffic surely there becomes a point where even procedures that have reasonable logic (roll vs touch-and-go) become less defensible simply on the grounds that they are non-standard.
And who has been teaching pilots to drop the "Clear ..." from all the clearances?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a convert (civvy pilot now flying at a mil airfield) I must say I am almost wholly convinced by military RT. The circuit procedures are easier, I love the initials join, and the RT is brisk and businesslike. Now going back into civvy airfields some of the RT drives me mad.
But there is definitely an element in the RAF which refuses to learn from the experience and theories of civilian MCC and human factors research. Some of the examples above (conditional clearances, line up and wait, for example) are clear indicators of where adding a couple of words can avoid incidents, yet people still fulminate against it.
I don't want to sound twee, but... both sides can learn from each other
Tim
But there is definitely an element in the RAF which refuses to learn from the experience and theories of civilian MCC and human factors research. Some of the examples above (conditional clearances, line up and wait, for example) are clear indicators of where adding a couple of words can avoid incidents, yet people still fulminate against it.
I don't want to sound twee, but... both sides can learn from each other
Tim
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
And who has been teaching pilots to drop the "Clear ..." from all the clearances?
Well, everyone, I should jolly well hope!!!
The word 'clear' is EXCLUSIVELY reserved for 'clear for take-off' and 'clear to land' and should be used under NO OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES. Let's not have another Tenerife.
Cheers,
TheOddOne
Well, everyone, I should jolly well hope!!!
The word 'clear' is EXCLUSIVELY reserved for 'clear for take-off' and 'clear to land' and should be used under NO OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES. Let's not have another Tenerife.
Cheers,
TheOddOne
Wrong.
After Tenerife "Ready for take-off" was replaced by "Ready for departure". This was so that another aircraft indicating readiness could not be confused with ATC issuing a take-off clearance. The pilot readback of "Cleared..." was not dropped.
CAP 413 states:
The quoted response is:
JSP 552 says almost the same "c/s clear take-off; clear take-off c/s"
Both documents follow similar patterns for the Land/Roll/O'shoot clearances.
Edited to add:
TheOddOne - Sorry if I sounded a bit agresssive. I don't know if there ever was a version of CAP413 where only ATC said "cleared" with word being dropped on readback. On the occasions that I have queried this abbreviation of clearance readbacks, older folks have quoted Tenerife as the reason (and younger ones say that's what their QFI said) However, I have never seen any published phraseology (civil or mil) that agrees, which leads me to suspect that it was a myth.
After Tenerife "Ready for take-off" was replaced by "Ready for departure". This was so that another aircraft indicating readiness could not be confused with ATC issuing a take-off clearance. The pilot readback of "Cleared..." was not dropped.
CAP 413 states:
Controllers will use the following phraseology for take off.
G-CD cleared for take-off
G-CD cleared for take-off
Cleared for take-off G-CD
Both documents follow similar patterns for the Land/Roll/O'shoot clearances.
Edited to add:
TheOddOne - Sorry if I sounded a bit agresssive. I don't know if there ever was a version of CAP413 where only ATC said "cleared" with word being dropped on readback. On the occasions that I have queried this abbreviation of clearance readbacks, older folks have quoted Tenerife as the reason (and younger ones say that's what their QFI said) However, I have never seen any published phraseology (civil or mil) that agrees, which leads me to suspect that it was a myth.
Last edited by Brain Potter; 26th Mar 2007 at 22:49.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK - just because I'm really bored (and slightly euphoric from a sleep deprivation/caffeine mix).
I'm not an expert and have never read JSP blah de blah
. I just fly aeroplanes.
The problem with "After landing traffic, line up and wait" is when the first bit gets stepped on/scrambled so all you hear is "...line up and wait". Seen it happen with an airliner when I was on short finals (obviously he didnt look out his window, he just rolled onto the runway in front of me).
Secondly I was always taught NEVER to repeat the "clear" part of a clearance as it could be mistaken by another aircraft for their clearance. Was told this in the olden days by a QFI, so it must be true. Had to have it beaten out of me as I had all those nasty habits from Flying Scholarship days! Interesting that lessons seem to get unlearnt after a while.
Wish I was flying today instead of reading PPRuNe
I'm not an expert and have never read JSP blah de blah
. I just fly aeroplanes.The problem with "After landing traffic, line up and wait" is when the first bit gets stepped on/scrambled so all you hear is "...line up and wait". Seen it happen with an airliner when I was on short finals (obviously he didnt look out his window, he just rolled onto the runway in front of me).
Secondly I was always taught NEVER to repeat the "clear" part of a clearance as it could be mistaken by another aircraft for their clearance. Was told this in the olden days by a QFI, so it must be true. Had to have it beaten out of me as I had all those nasty habits from Flying Scholarship days! Interesting that lessons seem to get unlearnt after a while.
Wish I was flying today instead of reading PPRuNe
"Secondly I was always taught NEVER to repeat the "clear" part of a clearance as it could be mistaken by another aircraft for their clearance."
That was ONCE the case; however, it had changed by the early 1990s. It then became MANDATORY to repeat the word 'clear' afer ATC had used it. You ARE TO readback all clearances.
When I came back to QFI-ing on the VC10 after some QFI-ing on the Bulldog, I found that some of my colleagues hadn't kept up with the changes and were still advocating the use of the word 'ROGER' after ATC called 'Clear to land'. Or even the 'click-click' on RT.
"I'm not an expert and have never read JSP blah de blah . I just fly aeroplanes."
I would say that is an unprofessional attitude. I suggest you go and read 'JSP blah de blah' and improve your professionalism if you're not flying!
That was ONCE the case; however, it had changed by the early 1990s. It then became MANDATORY to repeat the word 'clear' afer ATC had used it. You ARE TO readback all clearances.
When I came back to QFI-ing on the VC10 after some QFI-ing on the Bulldog, I found that some of my colleagues hadn't kept up with the changes and were still advocating the use of the word 'ROGER' after ATC called 'Clear to land'. Or even the 'click-click' on RT.
"I'm not an expert and have never read JSP blah de blah . I just fly aeroplanes."
I would say that is an unprofessional attitude. I suggest you go and read 'JSP blah de blah' and improve your professionalism if you're not flying!
