London ATC ?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 63
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the frequencies are busy and it is good that pilots are noticing! But why, when it is busy do alot of the pilots insist on asking for high speed beyond speed limit points, direct routings or diferent levels to those flight planned, when they can hear how busy it is? 
On a slightly different note I was on an easterly sector yesterday. One pilot was obviously late and had been speeded behind a low cost carrier (yes thats right, he was being slowed behind a low cost carrier). He was adamant that he could overtake and kept telling ATC that.
Now the sector was LHR to AMS, and he could give a 40kt overtake at 340kts. We worked out that he would need 200 miles about to do it. But the pilot continued nagging until he got another level to try. He didn't make it and still came second after runnning at high speed. All that aggro for not very much except more fuel burn
On a slightly different note I was on an easterly sector yesterday. One pilot was obviously late and had been speeded behind a low cost carrier (yes thats right, he was being slowed behind a low cost carrier). He was adamant that he could overtake and kept telling ATC that.
Now the sector was LHR to AMS, and he could give a 40kt overtake at 340kts. We worked out that he would need 200 miles about to do it. But the pilot continued nagging until he got another level to try. He didn't make it and still came second after runnning at high speed. All that aggro for not very much except more fuel burn
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other problem of 'Sqawking Ident' without being asked to by the ATCO is that he/she may already be expecting an ident from another, nearby aircraft, and could get misled by your, unasked for squawk. I would only squawk ident if instructed to do so. Like a previous poster said, the controller knows you are there. If you can't call him/her, they will call you if necessary.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: paris
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Busy as London ATC may be, its always a relief to leave Paris ATC and get handed over. Nice to get instructions in clear concise English without the "benefit" of numerous "aaaahhhhh"s, "disregard"s and "call you back"s... And of course none of the lunacy of half the transmissions not being in English. "
yep, maybe...
but at least, our radars work... and checking-in pilots can pass their messages...
As far as the language used is concerned, the day you will understand we just answer in the language the pilot uses (even English with a strong French accent), you'll have made tremendous progress...
and thanks to the BA pilot who was very satisfied with my approach vectors at CDG, and said it was worth thanking me...
we might not be the best atcos in the world, but at least we are capable of good work and some open minded British pilots can even acknowledge it...
yep, maybe...
but at least, our radars work... and checking-in pilots can pass their messages...
As far as the language used is concerned, the day you will understand we just answer in the language the pilot uses (even English with a strong French accent), you'll have made tremendous progress...
and thanks to the BA pilot who was very satisfied with my approach vectors at CDG, and said it was worth thanking me...
we might not be the best atcos in the world, but at least we are capable of good work and some open minded British pilots can even acknowledge it...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Departing London, the departure frequency is OK, but the next two (westbound) frequencies sound like they have their heads in a bucket of cotton wool. We turn the volume up to max to hear ATC then get our eardrums shattered by aircraft transmissions.
After turning the volume down again, the next ATC transmission is missed...and so on. No problems with Shannon, Shanwick, Prestwick or Scottish (or the USA)...unique to London. I have been told Swanwick are still using the old transmitter via a link.
Arriving London, the biggest secret in the world is the runway in use at Heathrow. Why no digital ATIS via ACARS?
After turning the volume down again, the next ATC transmission is missed...and so on. No problems with Shannon, Shanwick, Prestwick or Scottish (or the USA)...unique to London. I have been told Swanwick are still using the old transmitter via a link.
Arriving London, the biggest secret in the world is the runway in use at Heathrow. Why no digital ATIS via ACARS?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is getting stupidly busy on some sectors. However, "adapting" to it e.g. by not reading back frequencies etc. just covers this up.
As Capt P say, stick to the correct discipline, no more, no less. And if it gets beyond a reasonable time to get a call in, then ASR / MOR it.
And whilst here might be a time for requesting non-standard speeds etc., or other non-safety related requests, when the freq's busy commonsense needs to be used...
As Capt P say, stick to the correct discipline, no more, no less. And if it gets beyond a reasonable time to get a call in, then ASR / MOR it.
And whilst here might be a time for requesting non-standard speeds etc., or other non-safety related requests, when the freq's busy commonsense needs to be used...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another problem is the 'cover your back' mentality which now prevails. A few examples:
1) Ever since a certain US carrier landed at Brussels instead of Frankfurt we have to give full route information to aircraft landing in the UK and the next two reporting points to overflights. You can imagine how much time this uses up in saying it and getting a CORRECT readback. There are very few cases when the route we give is different than the one the crew have, and often these hav been identified by the Flight Plans dept. Why can't we just assume they will file the route on the strip unless we have reason to think they are different? Often a route to a reporting point wll suffice, since if it is an unexpected one the crew will query it and we can sort it then. How many times a day do we say to the Brit crew on its umpteenth rotation : "Lambourne 3A Heathrow"? Surely we only need to specify it if it is different to usual (e.g a stack swap onto BIG 1E).
2) As discussed several times on these fora, the sectors rely on target descent points to keep aircraft out of other sectors. But we're told we must restate level restrictions based upon one point if we clear them to a new place. Why? Surely it's better to assume that the restrictions will still apply UNLESS we lift them. That's fail-safe and probably MORE restrictive so we can specify when we DON'T need it.
3) We are supposed to say 'Maintain' to all aircraft on first contact (but not "MAINTAIN FL XXX" in case we say the wrong number and our US colleagues decide to demonstrate their own exceptions to ICAO and take it as a climb or descent clearance). An instruction to 'maintain' is a mandatory readback item. Of course they will maintain the level as we have not told them to do anything else. Another back-covering waste of time.
All of these take up RT time in a transmission and readback and are basically unnecessary. Meantime some poor bloke is hurtling towards TOD unable to get a word in while the third attempt to get a correct route readback is made!
However, thanks for the kind comments about Clacton Sector. It can be a bit 'sporty' at times!
1) Ever since a certain US carrier landed at Brussels instead of Frankfurt we have to give full route information to aircraft landing in the UK and the next two reporting points to overflights. You can imagine how much time this uses up in saying it and getting a CORRECT readback. There are very few cases when the route we give is different than the one the crew have, and often these hav been identified by the Flight Plans dept. Why can't we just assume they will file the route on the strip unless we have reason to think they are different? Often a route to a reporting point wll suffice, since if it is an unexpected one the crew will query it and we can sort it then. How many times a day do we say to the Brit crew on its umpteenth rotation : "Lambourne 3A Heathrow"? Surely we only need to specify it if it is different to usual (e.g a stack swap onto BIG 1E).
2) As discussed several times on these fora, the sectors rely on target descent points to keep aircraft out of other sectors. But we're told we must restate level restrictions based upon one point if we clear them to a new place. Why? Surely it's better to assume that the restrictions will still apply UNLESS we lift them. That's fail-safe and probably MORE restrictive so we can specify when we DON'T need it.
3) We are supposed to say 'Maintain' to all aircraft on first contact (but not "MAINTAIN FL XXX" in case we say the wrong number and our US colleagues decide to demonstrate their own exceptions to ICAO and take it as a climb or descent clearance). An instruction to 'maintain' is a mandatory readback item. Of course they will maintain the level as we have not told them to do anything else. Another back-covering waste of time.
All of these take up RT time in a transmission and readback and are basically unnecessary. Meantime some poor bloke is hurtling towards TOD unable to get a word in while the third attempt to get a correct route readback is made!
However, thanks for the kind comments about Clacton Sector. It can be a bit 'sporty' at times!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: london
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On some frequencies it is noticable that the controller never has any break in conversation. This continual speech is surely not in the best interests of safety as well as putting the controller under pressure. i am suprised that the relevant authorities including the atc union allow this.
generallyI give up after three calls, if atc want to speak to me they can call me. in regard to volume of calls its time to start filing some asr's
generallyI give up after three calls, if atc want to speak to me they can call me. in regard to volume of calls its time to start filing some asr's
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hangar 69
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic, but why do some airports (like LTN) require you to "advice aircraft type and QNH on innitial contact?" IMHO this really blocks the frequency and this is not done anywhere else.
1) Radar heading, or cleared to point
2) Altitude
3) ATIS information
4) QNH
5) Aircraft type
As far as aircraft type is concerned, canīt ATC read that off those cards?
QNH, this should be picked up on the ATIS.
1) Radar heading, or cleared to point
2) Altitude
3) ATIS information
4) QNH
5) Aircraft type
As far as aircraft type is concerned, canīt ATC read that off those cards?
QNH, this should be picked up on the ATIS.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doug the Head
I can't comment on Luton specifically, but most large UK airfields ask you to "report aircraft type and INFORMATION xx received". (They are not asking for the QNH). Knowing what information you have received alerts the controller if you need to be updated about a change in the weather/runway in use etc.
The aircraft type is written on the strip, but airlines do change aircraft occassionally and the change doesn't get picked up until you call Approach/Director. This is more important in the UK than elsewhere beacause there are more wake vortex groups here than standard and controllers routinely use the minimum spacing allowed between aircraft. So if you are in a 737 following an aircraft which the strip says is a 757 but is actually a 767.. your day might not have the happiest of endings.
G W-H
I can't comment on Luton specifically, but most large UK airfields ask you to "report aircraft type and INFORMATION xx received". (They are not asking for the QNH). Knowing what information you have received alerts the controller if you need to be updated about a change in the weather/runway in use etc.
The aircraft type is written on the strip, but airlines do change aircraft occassionally and the change doesn't get picked up until you call Approach/Director. This is more important in the UK than elsewhere beacause there are more wake vortex groups here than standard and controllers routinely use the minimum spacing allowed between aircraft. So if you are in a 737 following an aircraft which the strip says is a 757 but is actually a 767.. your day might not have the happiest of endings.
G W-H
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hangar 69
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THX for the info Giles Wembley-Hogg.
At LTN they want you to also (in addition to ATIS info Letter and aircraft type) confirm and readback the QNH "on initial contact."
I understand the wake turb cat point you make, but itīs a trade off against blocking the frequency for something that should be correct on the flightplan/strip.
Perhaps a silly idea, but couldnīt ATC make an exeption for airlines that operate only one wake turbulence category aircraft anyway, like Ryanair and easyJet? It would reduce a lot of unnecesary radio chatter in the London TMA on the APP frequencies near LTN, LGW and STN.
At LTN they want you to also (in addition to ATIS info Letter and aircraft type) confirm and readback the QNH "on initial contact."
I understand the wake turb cat point you make, but itīs a trade off against blocking the frequency for something that should be correct on the flightplan/strip.
Perhaps a silly idea, but couldnīt ATC make an exeption for airlines that operate only one wake turbulence category aircraft anyway, like Ryanair and easyJet? It would reduce a lot of unnecesary radio chatter in the London TMA on the APP frequencies near LTN, LGW and STN.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doug the Head.... How does ATC know that a particular airline only operates a particular category of aircraft? I have several times seen "small" airlines lease a "heavy" jet and you can't expect ATC to know what types every airline uses.. As has been pointed out, airlines often change types without telling ATC. If they didn't this particular safeguard would not be needed.
As for getting the QNH off the ATIS, that's really asking for trouble. If you knew how often pilots quote the wrong ATIS info you wouldn't make such a suggestion. I've had countless - and I mean COUNTLESS - aircraft lock on to the wrong runway at Heathrow because they listened to the ATIS an hour ago and, despite being told the up-to-date info and being reminded about it during the approach, have STILL used the wrong data. And how about some of our US friends who suggest we don't need readbacks and, when prompted, read back 992 as 29.92???
We can never be too safe. Further to what eyeinthesky said about the Brussels flight... I was on watch at Heathrow when a DC8 landed and during taxy-in the pilot said "Jeez; we should be at Gatwick". That's one reason why the radar controllers remind you about the runway several times during the approach. It might seem over-the-top, but it would probably have avoided that particular incident.
As for getting the QNH off the ATIS, that's really asking for trouble. If you knew how often pilots quote the wrong ATIS info you wouldn't make such a suggestion. I've had countless - and I mean COUNTLESS - aircraft lock on to the wrong runway at Heathrow because they listened to the ATIS an hour ago and, despite being told the up-to-date info and being reminded about it during the approach, have STILL used the wrong data. And how about some of our US friends who suggest we don't need readbacks and, when prompted, read back 992 as 29.92???
We can never be too safe. Further to what eyeinthesky said about the Brussels flight... I was on watch at Heathrow when a DC8 landed and during taxy-in the pilot said "Jeez; we should be at Gatwick". That's one reason why the radar controllers remind you about the runway several times during the approach. It might seem over-the-top, but it would probably have avoided that particular incident.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doug,
At Manch we have an Arrival ATIS [A-M ] and a Departure ATIS [N-Z ]
BOTH have different bits of info on them.....It really is amazing how Departures listen to the ARRIVAL ATIS
We also have a lot of "Type Changes" that the company "forget" to let ATC know...so it helps us [just a little bit....
]
watp,iktch
At Manch we have an Arrival ATIS [A-M ] and a Departure ATIS [N-Z ]
BOTH have different bits of info on them.....It really is amazing how Departures listen to the ARRIVAL ATIS
We also have a lot of "Type Changes" that the company "forget" to let ATC know...so it helps us [just a little bit....
]watp,iktch
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over+Out
At Maastricht data link trials have been carried out for several years.
They were terminated for a while when the new display system came on line but were re-introduced towards the end of last year.
Unfortunately the info, and instructions for which we may use it was limited at the request of certain National Administrations, which has probably deterred a number of operators from joining the scheme.
It certainly has a place in tomorrow's ATC, however at the moment it is still piggybacked onto the input system and, at Maastricht at least, not very user friendly,especially when busy.
I retired a few months ago so maybe some one like Traffic Traffic or Four Three Three - BTW, loved the score last night, salut les copins - would be able to provide more info, otherwise look at the Eurocontrol website.
FWIW, when it's that busy, and the traffic is following SIDs/STARs/is en-route, and is identified to the controller, would not a better instruction be, "C/S monitor unit on freq.."? Then the next controller can call them up as , and when, he needs to work them. Unfortunately requires a more intense monitoring of the freq., and probably 121.5 than is now the case.
Lon More, more than just an ATCO
Here before Pontius was a Pilot or Mortus was a Rigger
At Maastricht data link trials have been carried out for several years.
They were terminated for a while when the new display system came on line but were re-introduced towards the end of last year.
Unfortunately the info, and instructions for which we may use it was limited at the request of certain National Administrations, which has probably deterred a number of operators from joining the scheme.
It certainly has a place in tomorrow's ATC, however at the moment it is still piggybacked onto the input system and, at Maastricht at least, not very user friendly,especially when busy.
I retired a few months ago so maybe some one like Traffic Traffic or Four Three Three - BTW, loved the score last night, salut les copins - would be able to provide more info, otherwise look at the Eurocontrol website.
FWIW, when it's that busy, and the traffic is following SIDs/STARs/is en-route, and is identified to the controller, would not a better instruction be, "C/S monitor unit on freq.."? Then the next controller can call them up as , and when, he needs to work them. Unfortunately requires a more intense monitoring of the freq., and probably 121.5 than is now the case.
Lon More, more than just an ATCO
Here before Pontius was a Pilot or Mortus was a Rigger
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<"C/S monitor unit on freq.."?>>
That's a procedure employed at Heathrow Tower, and no doubt elsewhere but as a lifelong communicator, both in ATC and elsewhere, I do not favour it and have never used it. It may not be too dangerous with a/c on the ground but when they're up in the sky I suggest it's fraught with danger. How often have you waited patiently for someone to call and then immediately gone in with the next best thing to avoiding action? I've certainly seen it and done it in the LTMA. It can take some pilots several l-o-n-g seconds to make contact so you never know if he's actually there.... and how about if the guy is twiddling his thumbs and listening on the wrong frequency? No - communication MUST be properly established, then by all means just monitor.
That's a procedure employed at Heathrow Tower, and no doubt elsewhere but as a lifelong communicator, both in ATC and elsewhere, I do not favour it and have never used it. It may not be too dangerous with a/c on the ground but when they're up in the sky I suggest it's fraught with danger. How often have you waited patiently for someone to call and then immediately gone in with the next best thing to avoiding action? I've certainly seen it and done it in the LTMA. It can take some pilots several l-o-n-g seconds to make contact so you never know if he's actually there.... and how about if the guy is twiddling his thumbs and listening on the wrong frequency? No - communication MUST be properly established, then by all means just monitor.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose we as pilots could do our bit to cut down on frequency congestion by getting our initial call to the departure controller correct. I think it is worth reiterating that in the UK you must report:
1. Passing level
2. Cleared level
3. SID designator
when you first check in. No exceptions. Every day many flights miss at least one of these items out leading to calls from the controller to extract the information.
G W-H
1. Passing level
2. Cleared level
3. SID designator
when you first check in. No exceptions. Every day many flights miss at least one of these items out leading to calls from the controller to extract the information.
G W-H
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And another thing....!
PLEASE DON'T SQUAWK IDENT UNTIL ASKED! Just means we have to wait until it stops and ask you again! I appreciate it is done to help but it doesn't
Back to the topic.....
I agree with HD - and there is a definite overloading problem on most frequencies in the LTMA. Answers on a postcard! (actually, the whole airpsace would need redesigning so answers on a FlipChart!)
PLEASE DON'T SQUAWK IDENT UNTIL ASKED! Just means we have to wait until it stops and ask you again! I appreciate it is done to help but it doesn't
Back to the topic.....
I agree with HD - and there is a definite overloading problem on most frequencies in the LTMA. Answers on a postcard! (actually, the whole airpsace would need redesigning so answers on a FlipChart!)
Last edited by Bright-Ling; 14th Jun 2004 at 20:43.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luton ATIS
Reading back the QNH, Aircraft type and ATIS ident on first contact with Luton approach is fine and understandable, but why do they read all the same information back to you even when you've gotten all the bits correct? Seems to take up a lot of air time!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: England
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Director,
Sir, in our operation we are specifically NOT allowed to listen to the ATIS in the descent. So it will nearly always be out of date.
A question for atcos, please. As I understand it (reading CAP) when being transferred to a new unit we should check in with:
ATC name
Callsign
Passing FL / Alt
Cleared FL / Alt
Heading / SID / STAR / Routing
Do we need to pass the "Passing" bit when going from one frequency to another if both are, say, London?
Also have to add that 119.77 is overloaded, to say the least.
Stu
Sir, in our operation we are specifically NOT allowed to listen to the ATIS in the descent. So it will nearly always be out of date.
A question for atcos, please. As I understand it (reading CAP) when being transferred to a new unit we should check in with:
ATC name
Callsign
Passing FL / Alt
Cleared FL / Alt
Heading / SID / STAR / Routing
Do we need to pass the "Passing" bit when going from one frequency to another if both are, say, London?
Also have to add that 119.77 is overloaded, to say the least.
Stu