Near Collision at BOS between Aer Lingus and US Air
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you 'screw up' thats one thing. But when ATC put me in an impossible position or make unreasonable demands with which I cannot safely comply - that is not my 'screw up', frankly - its theirs.
When I referred to 'reading the riot act' I did not mean the kind of mild reminder you'll hear from any other ATC facility worldwide.
It gets a bit nasty really.
You say you don't believe me about penal holding?
I can prove it.
Look at the Jeppesen Taxi plate for KORD. You'll find a holding area on it labelled 'Penalty Box' - its there in black and white.
Its where you get sent when ATC lose their rag if you can't understand their garbled instructions.
What kind of mentality is it that chose a name like that? And to actually put it in print too?
It simply reflects the attitude I mentioned - penal holding for the non-compliant.
When I referred to 'reading the riot act' I did not mean the kind of mild reminder you'll hear from any other ATC facility worldwide.
It gets a bit nasty really.
You say you don't believe me about penal holding?
I can prove it.
Look at the Jeppesen Taxi plate for KORD. You'll find a holding area on it labelled 'Penalty Box' - its there in black and white.
Its where you get sent when ATC lose their rag if you can't understand their garbled instructions.
What kind of mentality is it that chose a name like that? And to actually put it in print too?
It simply reflects the attitude I mentioned - penal holding for the non-compliant.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry guys, for returning to the thread.
Just a couple of questions more:
Were both controllers in close proximity to each other (in the same room) although being on different freqs.? Even so, how is it possible to synchronize departures/arrivals with each other when they're listening to different things and trying to keep their own work list flowing? Is there any form of signaling rwy in use, or do they just shout to each other "Hey!! Now its my turn!" ?!
Is there any more examples of bad systems implementation, similar to this or not, you know and would like to share with us?
(why wait 12 to 14 months for the proper authorities to publish new recomendations when the pro's from either side of the R/T fence could help debugging/defusing situations with a high risk potential such as this IMHO).
GD&L
Just a couple of questions more:
Were both controllers in close proximity to each other (in the same room) although being on different freqs.? Even so, how is it possible to synchronize departures/arrivals with each other when they're listening to different things and trying to keep their own work list flowing? Is there any form of signaling rwy in use, or do they just shout to each other "Hey!! Now its my turn!" ?!
Is there any more examples of bad systems implementation, similar to this or not, you know and would like to share with us?
(why wait 12 to 14 months for the proper authorities to publish new recomendations when the pro's from either side of the R/T fence could help debugging/defusing situations with a high risk potential such as this IMHO).
GD&L
"When I referred to 'reading the riot act' I did not mean the kind of mild reminder you'll hear from any other ATC facility worldwide"
My experience is that they save the mild reminders for mild excursions and the riot act for those worthy of it.
"Look at the Jeppesen Taxi plate for KORD. You'll find a holding area on it labelled 'Penalty Box' - its there in black and white"
Naming movement areas is usually a function of airport operations, not ATC. The two are often at odds about such things. It also happens to be a takeoff from hockey vernacular.
I've spent plenty of time in the box, ALWAYS waiting for a gate inbound or waiting for a flow time outbound to another airport. From what I've been told by ATC there they don't like to fill the penalty box because it limits their options when a plane comes off without an open gate. I could only imagine for them to send someone there because of something other than operational need you really need to have screwed the pooch. You spend much time in it?
My experience is that they save the mild reminders for mild excursions and the riot act for those worthy of it.
"Look at the Jeppesen Taxi plate for KORD. You'll find a holding area on it labelled 'Penalty Box' - its there in black and white"
Naming movement areas is usually a function of airport operations, not ATC. The two are often at odds about such things. It also happens to be a takeoff from hockey vernacular.
I've spent plenty of time in the box, ALWAYS waiting for a gate inbound or waiting for a flow time outbound to another airport. From what I've been told by ATC there they don't like to fill the penalty box because it limits their options when a plane comes off without an open gate. I could only imagine for them to send someone there because of something other than operational need you really need to have screwed the pooch. You spend much time in it?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAXALT, What does the ORD airport "penalty box" have to do with HOLDING?
I strongly agree with WestCoast in that the Jeppesen airport diagram nomenclature has no nexus to ATC. That is an Airport Operations issue.
I strongly agree with WestCoast in that the Jeppesen airport diagram nomenclature has no nexus to ATC. That is an Airport Operations issue.
Controversial, moi?
Having just waded through all 14 odd pages of this thread I can understand Danny's frustration!
A few observations as a pilot experienced in both longhaul and shorthaul operations and having operated all over the world for the past 20 years.
ATC in many parts of the world is dire, most of Africa, South America to name but two. In the US we are constantly suprised at what we experience because, I believe, we think that because the controllers speak a type of English language that they operate to identical procedures and standards to the UK. A similar observation can be made when looking at many other aspects of life and behaviour in the US versus the UK!
I fly for BA and we constantly have a dilemma in the US when asked to maintain 180kts or greater to, say, 4 miles because we cannot then comply with our company SOPs of being fully configured and stabilised on the approach with approach power set and the speed within +20kts of our target speed. It could be argued that our criteria are conservative but it is plain from observing operations in the US over many years that we are fairly unique in having those criteria and also the system that monitors those parameters (and a lot else) namely SESMA. It does cause us regular problems in complying with US ATC instructions.
Operating into busy US airspace the often late and sometimes multiple (LAX in particular) runway changes give the impression of a completely fluid situation with no real organised plan of action for handling inbound aircraft. Similarly I have been vectored for miles around the surrounding countryside, when ATC are busy, when I cannot help compare with the UK procedure at London where, beyond a certain traffic levels, inbounds hold in one of four holding stacks and, having been descended in the stack, are fed neatly into the approach flow at the appropriate distance from other aircraft in the line.
Another observation. A few days ago at ORD, the usual three runways in use. I always get performance figures out of the system for all three runways because it is a guess, at best, which runway will be assigned for departure. We taxied for 09L. As we approached the 32L T10 intersection we were changed to that runway for departure and also told to contact 'clearance' for a re- route. We had a completely new re-route all the way to IAH and, having received it, returned to the tower frequency where the controller instructed us to line up. Now I can accept changes but to re-program the performance data (different flap setting too) and enter a new route (if only the first few way points) allowing the other pilot time to cross check this safety critical flight data takes more than 15 seconds. When I said we were going to be a couple of minutes the controller sounded exasperated and moved us across to the other side of the runway to hold clear of other departing traffic. It put us under terrific pressure (which I can deal with) but is a recipe for making significant errors. I question whether the controllers actually appreciate what they are asking us to do.
To balance the argument the US come into their own when helping aircraft route around weather. The difference being that they can see it on their radars whereas in the UK they filter it out!
It is a testament to the US controllers skill that they handle the volumes of traffic that they do without more serious incidents but I cannot help but feel that the system could be a great deal better. Regular famil flights for controllers would be a good start.
A few observations as a pilot experienced in both longhaul and shorthaul operations and having operated all over the world for the past 20 years.
ATC in many parts of the world is dire, most of Africa, South America to name but two. In the US we are constantly suprised at what we experience because, I believe, we think that because the controllers speak a type of English language that they operate to identical procedures and standards to the UK. A similar observation can be made when looking at many other aspects of life and behaviour in the US versus the UK!
I fly for BA and we constantly have a dilemma in the US when asked to maintain 180kts or greater to, say, 4 miles because we cannot then comply with our company SOPs of being fully configured and stabilised on the approach with approach power set and the speed within +20kts of our target speed. It could be argued that our criteria are conservative but it is plain from observing operations in the US over many years that we are fairly unique in having those criteria and also the system that monitors those parameters (and a lot else) namely SESMA. It does cause us regular problems in complying with US ATC instructions.
Operating into busy US airspace the often late and sometimes multiple (LAX in particular) runway changes give the impression of a completely fluid situation with no real organised plan of action for handling inbound aircraft. Similarly I have been vectored for miles around the surrounding countryside, when ATC are busy, when I cannot help compare with the UK procedure at London where, beyond a certain traffic levels, inbounds hold in one of four holding stacks and, having been descended in the stack, are fed neatly into the approach flow at the appropriate distance from other aircraft in the line.
Another observation. A few days ago at ORD, the usual three runways in use. I always get performance figures out of the system for all three runways because it is a guess, at best, which runway will be assigned for departure. We taxied for 09L. As we approached the 32L T10 intersection we were changed to that runway for departure and also told to contact 'clearance' for a re- route. We had a completely new re-route all the way to IAH and, having received it, returned to the tower frequency where the controller instructed us to line up. Now I can accept changes but to re-program the performance data (different flap setting too) and enter a new route (if only the first few way points) allowing the other pilot time to cross check this safety critical flight data takes more than 15 seconds. When I said we were going to be a couple of minutes the controller sounded exasperated and moved us across to the other side of the runway to hold clear of other departing traffic. It put us under terrific pressure (which I can deal with) but is a recipe for making significant errors. I question whether the controllers actually appreciate what they are asking us to do.
To balance the argument the US come into their own when helping aircraft route around weather. The difference being that they can see it on their radars whereas in the UK they filter it out!
It is a testament to the US controllers skill that they handle the volumes of traffic that they do without more serious incidents but I cannot help but feel that the system could be a great deal better. Regular famil flights for controllers would be a good start.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Even so, how is it possible to synchronize departures/arrivals with each other when they're listening to different things and trying to keep their own work list flowing?>>
No big deal at all.. I've worked a 2-runway set-up with another controller on another frequency and not said a word to him, apart from discussing the football results. All controllers work with data displays. One simply looks at the other's flight data display - everything controllers do is written down so someone else can see what's going on - and out of the window. A further example - Heathrow Approach has four holding areas; I've worked two of them on a separate frequency from a colleague who was not sitting next to me..... and not found the need to talk to him whilst we both combine two streams into one.
I guess you're not an aviation professional but you could still try and get a visit to your local ATC facility where you'd find things very interesting.
I first heard about the Penalty Box at Chicago about 30 years ago and I know what it's for..... as it was fully explained by Chicago controllers to a Heathrow controller on a working visit.
No big deal at all.. I've worked a 2-runway set-up with another controller on another frequency and not said a word to him, apart from discussing the football results. All controllers work with data displays. One simply looks at the other's flight data display - everything controllers do is written down so someone else can see what's going on - and out of the window. A further example - Heathrow Approach has four holding areas; I've worked two of them on a separate frequency from a colleague who was not sitting next to me..... and not found the need to talk to him whilst we both combine two streams into one.
I guess you're not an aviation professional but you could still try and get a visit to your local ATC facility where you'd find things very interesting.
I first heard about the Penalty Box at Chicago about 30 years ago and I know what it's for..... as it was fully explained by Chicago controllers to a Heathrow controller on a working visit.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post, Mouse. All correct, and not just reserved for foreign carriers - I have had similar stuff with re-routing and runway changes with my US carrier. I just stay calm and tell them what I can and will not do. They get ruffled sometimes, but especially heavy, I'm not rushing off 32/T10 intersection or anywhere else, for that matter.
As I've posted previously, some of the fields we get to go to domestically are even more rushed, trying help their best friend airline, and they clearly cannot comprehend that some operators have more stringent stabilised app. criteria, or even that some types cannot extend flaps and speedbrakes at the same time. The MD-80 is particularly tricky to get down in icing conditions compared to the Boeings. Burbank is one example, LAX being perhaps the worst.
At DFW at present, 17C has only a LOC approach, and our company requires us to be stabilized by the FAF. DFW has been requesting 180 to the marker etc, and this has put a dilemma on all, with the company trying to negotiate with ATC. No solution yet.
In my opinion it's safe, but needlessly frenetic.
As I've posted previously, some of the fields we get to go to domestically are even more rushed, trying help their best friend airline, and they clearly cannot comprehend that some operators have more stringent stabilised app. criteria, or even that some types cannot extend flaps and speedbrakes at the same time. The MD-80 is particularly tricky to get down in icing conditions compared to the Boeings. Burbank is one example, LAX being perhaps the worst.
At DFW at present, 17C has only a LOC approach, and our company requires us to be stabilized by the FAF. DFW has been requesting 180 to the marker etc, and this has put a dilemma on all, with the company trying to negotiate with ATC. No solution yet.
In my opinion it's safe, but needlessly frenetic.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and the riot act for those worthy of it.
The 180kts to the OM is a good example. Its given frequently and is usually impossible to comply with - unless you're prepared to break SOPs. And M.Mouse - that SOP is NOT peculiar to your company. Mine uses it too. In fact they adopted it as a result of recomendations by Flight Safety International (an American organisation!) who specify clearly the criteria for stabilised approaches in their regular ALARs releases (Approach and Landing Accident Review).
Funny, isn't it, how Americans often come up with these great safety ideas (Stabilised Approach criteria, CRM etc) and yet seem unable to apply them in their own system.
As regards the Penalty Box, its been there for 30 years as you said, and yes, everyone knows why its there - it was legend back in the 60's when we first started operating into ORD. It was referred to as the Penalty Box in a totally flippant manner by the controllers on ground frequency, and thats what it was there for - to penalise those who got lost on the taxi ways. The name stuck.
Sure, current ATC may have other uses for it, and sure, current ATC may not have chosen the name, but thats what its called, right there on the Jeppie plate, and thats why its there, and it still leaves a question mark over a system that engages in that kind of thinking. I suggest they change it - why not, as an act of good faith!
Check6, HOLDING can occur on the ground as well as in the air.
Maybe you didn't know that?
I can't help but think you bring it upon yourself. I fly in to your offending airports more times in a month than you will in years and have 1/10th the problems.
"to penalise those who got lost on the taxi ways. The name stuck"
If your lost at the worlds busiest airport you haven't done your job as a professional pilot. As that pilot I would want someplace where I could regroup and figure out where I should be going.
Again, I haven't been to the box for anything other than operational needs. I'm sure its happened and you have latched on to it as the prime reason for the penalty boxes existance.
"why not, as an act of good faith!"
Another reason we are buried in being PC, because someone is offended and we must move heaven and earth to accomodate the vast minority.
Funny enuff, I operate under an SOP is likely just the same as yours with regard to being stabilized. If I'm told 180 and can't do it I tell them I'll give you xx and there isn't EVER a problem.
"to penalise those who got lost on the taxi ways. The name stuck"
If your lost at the worlds busiest airport you haven't done your job as a professional pilot. As that pilot I would want someplace where I could regroup and figure out where I should be going.
Again, I haven't been to the box for anything other than operational needs. I'm sure its happened and you have latched on to it as the prime reason for the penalty boxes existance.
"why not, as an act of good faith!"
Another reason we are buried in being PC, because someone is offended and we must move heaven and earth to accomodate the vast minority.
Funny enuff, I operate under an SOP is likely just the same as yours with regard to being stabilized. If I'm told 180 and can't do it I tell them I'll give you xx and there isn't EVER a problem.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, in the hope of finally getting the testosterone out of this debate, MaxAlt, I too believe you were referring to 'holding' whilst airborne which is much more critical fuelwise. I agree that holding on the ground can affect your plans if you are about to go off on a min fuel plog, especially long haul but you are at least on the ground, have the option of going somewhere else on the airport where they can hopefully give you extra fuel. Most operators will be aware of extensive ground holding and will uplift extra fuel accordingly.
What I find slightly unusual is the fact that more airlines don't send their flight ops representatives to visit the various TRACONS where they have experienced problems in the past. All major airlines know where the problem ATC are, and in the case of my company they were IAD and MIA. A visit and discussion with the various TRACONS soon ironed out the problem areas and memo's were issued with the do's and don'ts. In some cases the controllers now realise that for us to comply with our SOP's all they need to do is give us an extra mile vectoring and the problem is sorted. No big deal and everyone is happy. The controllers appreciated the interaction and feedback as well as us pilots.
There is no way I believe that any of the problems mentioned in this thread couldn't be sorted out by effective liason. Mind you, if you go in with a pig headed attitude you are going to get treatment that leads to a headache.
What I find slightly unusual is the fact that more airlines don't send their flight ops representatives to visit the various TRACONS where they have experienced problems in the past. All major airlines know where the problem ATC are, and in the case of my company they were IAD and MIA. A visit and discussion with the various TRACONS soon ironed out the problem areas and memo's were issued with the do's and don'ts. In some cases the controllers now realise that for us to comply with our SOP's all they need to do is give us an extra mile vectoring and the problem is sorted. No big deal and everyone is happy. The controllers appreciated the interaction and feedback as well as us pilots.
There is no way I believe that any of the problems mentioned in this thread couldn't be sorted out by effective liason. Mind you, if you go in with a pig headed attitude you are going to get treatment that leads to a headache.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny, even you can surely see by now that the attitude is that there is nothing remotely wrong with their way of doing things. Indeed you seem to be of that opinion yourself.
Every response made to criticisms of US ATC in this discussion has been defensive and contradictory in nature, and laced with flip comments like 'it never happens to me' 'you didn't bring your A game' 'thats just the way it is' etc.
Do you really mean to say these folk are vaguely interested in anyone elses opinion? I doubt it. I don't think my FOM would bother going into such a lions den, and I don't blame him.
I have several hundred colleagues who fly there on a regular basis, they all have war stories, and few of them have a high regard for certain ATC units in the US. Its nothing new - like I said, I was hearing the same feedback years before I even went there myself.
I think a lot of folk are in denial over there, and its a pity that everyone is so on the defensive at the moment - I really sense a kind of siege mentality in general. Its impossible to rationalise with.
See you in the penalty box then.
Every response made to criticisms of US ATC in this discussion has been defensive and contradictory in nature, and laced with flip comments like 'it never happens to me' 'you didn't bring your A game' 'thats just the way it is' etc.
Do you really mean to say these folk are vaguely interested in anyone elses opinion? I doubt it. I don't think my FOM would bother going into such a lions den, and I don't blame him.
I have several hundred colleagues who fly there on a regular basis, they all have war stories, and few of them have a high regard for certain ATC units in the US. Its nothing new - like I said, I was hearing the same feedback years before I even went there myself.
I think a lot of folk are in denial over there, and its a pity that everyone is so on the defensive at the moment - I really sense a kind of siege mentality in general. Its impossible to rationalise with.
See you in the penalty box then.
Last edited by maxalt; 4th Jul 2005 at 20:25.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About 180 till OM it all depends-if established long time ago on final it is not really a problem-it starts to get more tricky when they turn you in about 8 miles final. If a slight overshoot or anything else happens then you are looking for trouble...Is it worth it?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMF
You don't have to agree with me..I'm just stating the ATC Saturation/Congestion Facts of Life for you. Readbacks are only helpful to the controller and therefore enhance safety up until they become a hinderance. At that point, because they eat up his time for issuing subsequent instructions and delaying what he wants to do with the BIg Picture, they become counterproductive to safety. The more aircraft, the more instructions, the less airwave time available, the more instructions, the more time readbacks for each one eat up, and so on....until him re-hearing what he just told you is getting in the way. He wouldnt be dropping the requirement if it weren't.
Im I mising something-new procedures??Since when do procedures change when it gets busy??
So next time time I am asked to switch to control tower frequency when it gets a little busy on the radio I just switch over-needless to respond no?I am using valuable ATC control time...
Guys how in the world can you agree with that?
Imagine the mess:the guy misses tower frequency and no contact in that critical phases of flight! Other options must be available!
You don't have to agree with me..I'm just stating the ATC Saturation/Congestion Facts of Life for you. Readbacks are only helpful to the controller and therefore enhance safety up until they become a hinderance. At that point, because they eat up his time for issuing subsequent instructions and delaying what he wants to do with the BIg Picture, they become counterproductive to safety. The more aircraft, the more instructions, the less airwave time available, the more instructions, the more time readbacks for each one eat up, and so on....until him re-hearing what he just told you is getting in the way. He wouldnt be dropping the requirement if it weren't.
Im I mising something-new procedures??Since when do procedures change when it gets busy??
So next time time I am asked to switch to control tower frequency when it gets a little busy on the radio I just switch over-needless to respond no?I am using valuable ATC control time...
Guys how in the world can you agree with that?
Imagine the mess:the guy misses tower frequency and no contact in that critical phases of flight! Other options must be available!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting if explosive thread...some have asked for some humility this side of the pond so I would say this..US ATC are not perfect,mistakes are made..they do rely to some extent on this "gentleman's agreement" which unofficially states that a pilot,by offering absolute flexibility(within safety limits of course) to the controller,can make the controllers job so much easier..controllers know instinctively who they can rely on for this and they quite rightly push it as far as possible..they have to, to make the equation work(x aircraft in y time)...there are lots of variables of course..but mental preparation(covering all bases as it were-taxi to 09L by all means but know the contingencies ahead of time) and familiarity with that airport are the two keys...
US controllers do NOT expect everyone to play the game at such a slick tempo...they would be foolish to think it were possible..they make exceptions,devote the extra attention,and ask for favors from locals..its only when they get the feeling that you're being deliberately obstinate that they might make life a little difficult for you(Idunno,take note)..its never malicious but rather a pointed reminder..
Controllers worldwide do a very demanding job for relatively small financial reward..they deserve all the help that pilots can reasonably offer.
AVIANCA crashed because they failed to declare an emergency...MAYDAY is the internationally-recognized distress signal and it was never used.
The crash at Tenerife was the clearest case of criminal negligence by a PILOT(KLM) in the history of commercial aviation.An authoritative controller with fluent colloquial English would have prevented it but controller error was never alluded to in the Spanish report.And rightly so.
US controllers do NOT expect everyone to play the game at such a slick tempo...they would be foolish to think it were possible..they make exceptions,devote the extra attention,and ask for favors from locals..its only when they get the feeling that you're being deliberately obstinate that they might make life a little difficult for you(Idunno,take note)..its never malicious but rather a pointed reminder..
Controllers worldwide do a very demanding job for relatively small financial reward..they deserve all the help that pilots can reasonably offer.
AVIANCA crashed because they failed to declare an emergency...MAYDAY is the internationally-recognized distress signal and it was never used.
The crash at Tenerife was the clearest case of criminal negligence by a PILOT(KLM) in the history of commercial aviation.An authoritative controller with fluent colloquial English would have prevented it but controller error was never alluded to in the Spanish report.And rightly so.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dipping a toe in some turbulent waters...
Handflying:
Am I alone in seeing a problem here? If a controller/frequency is so busy that all the controller can do is issue (hopefully correct) staccato instructions and clearances (which are hopefully heard correctly) machine-gun fashion with no time for the readbacks that would normally be considered essential... well the problem is serious and dropping the requirement for readbacks is NOT the solution!
R1
Handflying:
Readbacks are only helpful to the controller and therefore enhance safety up until they become a hinderance. At that point, because they eat up his time for issuing subsequent instructions and delaying what he wants to do with the BIg Picture, they become counterproductive to safety.
R1
Ranger One-quite true. Even if our system allowed time for a complete readback, there must be time for a "hearback" and a limited workload which allows comprehension.
My observations here are not about BOS-I know next to nothing about it. I've flown only a limited number of times outside the US, but a bit more to Canada, where ATC sounds much less rushed; on occasion into Montreal and Toronto (we had 4 separate approach/arrival controllers there one day), a few times to Edmonton or Winnepeg. The most stressed out controllers I've ever listened to on a fairly regular basis were LAX Approach or Tower controllers several years ago on the wonderful Civet Arrival
. That d@^^ ^ e& approach has no level-off to reduce from 192 to 164 knots for full flaps-and it was difficult for me even with fully extended speedbrakes and flaps 15, but I never was one of the better 757 FOs (especially in Initial Training). They once gave us an EXTRA altitude restriction which was not published, after two or three runway changes!! What an ATC system. I sympathize with many of the comments made by foreign pilots about our "flow control factory" over here.
Although based upon this mostly one-sided background, I wonder whether some traditional procedures developed at US airports, including the very contradictory "maintain 180 until C0ckroach (represents most real estate near major US airports)" is partly a result of both our previous generations of pilots and airline Training/Fleet Standards Departments wanting to be team players. We train one way in the simulator but the US is the Land Of The Real World, and we can not change it, unfortunately. Our simulator training is based upon ATC in a Perfect World, but most of this is vital for good training and checking.
Over here, and even with Air Traffic Control (?), quantifiable results and getting the job done are what count most, if we all feel that it can be somehow done safely (but we must voice concern to the other pilot and ATC if we are uncomfortable with something), by being so flexible that only very partial readbacks to ATC can take place. Several pilots are all now waiting for their turn to click the microphone button, as the next two guys/gals assume the same thing and are ready to block his readback, if not transmitted in just ONE very short partial, condensed readback. And this is with Washington, New York, Boston, Cleveland or Chicago Enroute Centers when the weather is good. How about with Approach control, or when the weather produces a cluster of major thunderstorms? I'm sure glad that I've not been to "La Garbage" (Guardia) or Boston for about a year or more.
I know nothing about the mishap in Boston, but starting many years ago I got so used to being pushed through an always over-saturated ATC system (this means time and space in the eastern US; maybe Stephen Hawking has a phrase for this?) that when I feel the need to change a clearance, it is very difficult to get through to the controller without blocking at least one call from another aircraft, thereby making it at least four times as difficult for the controller, who always has my sympathies-he/she did not create our system. On approach, a pilot who refuses to accept about 170 or 180 knots to the OM or approach Final Segment can feel that he simply can not handle what other pilots can "hack". But these are just my very generalized impressions of many, very typical Great Lakes and East Coast (from northern Florida to North Carolina the enroute situations seem ok in good weather) enroute airspace and approach scenarios at the larger airports. With certain exceptions, the problem is with our ATC system's inherited procedures, certain policies and how controllers are trained and expected to handle the many aircraft in the over-saturated areas. Doesn't each controller have to use standard procedures as with pilots, but be very flexible? To me it still is a mystery how it functions as well as it does. But are there reduced margins of error in the system because pilots try too hard to be team players? Many ATC controllers are retiring soon and must be replaced.
My observations here are not about BOS-I know next to nothing about it. I've flown only a limited number of times outside the US, but a bit more to Canada, where ATC sounds much less rushed; on occasion into Montreal and Toronto (we had 4 separate approach/arrival controllers there one day), a few times to Edmonton or Winnepeg. The most stressed out controllers I've ever listened to on a fairly regular basis were LAX Approach or Tower controllers several years ago on the wonderful Civet Arrival
. That d@^^ ^ e& approach has no level-off to reduce from 192 to 164 knots for full flaps-and it was difficult for me even with fully extended speedbrakes and flaps 15, but I never was one of the better 757 FOs (especially in Initial Training). They once gave us an EXTRA altitude restriction which was not published, after two or three runway changes!! What an ATC system. I sympathize with many of the comments made by foreign pilots about our "flow control factory" over here.Although based upon this mostly one-sided background, I wonder whether some traditional procedures developed at US airports, including the very contradictory "maintain 180 until C0ckroach (represents most real estate near major US airports)" is partly a result of both our previous generations of pilots and airline Training/Fleet Standards Departments wanting to be team players. We train one way in the simulator but the US is the Land Of The Real World, and we can not change it, unfortunately. Our simulator training is based upon ATC in a Perfect World, but most of this is vital for good training and checking.
Over here, and even with Air Traffic Control (?), quantifiable results and getting the job done are what count most, if we all feel that it can be somehow done safely (but we must voice concern to the other pilot and ATC if we are uncomfortable with something), by being so flexible that only very partial readbacks to ATC can take place. Several pilots are all now waiting for their turn to click the microphone button, as the next two guys/gals assume the same thing and are ready to block his readback, if not transmitted in just ONE very short partial, condensed readback. And this is with Washington, New York, Boston, Cleveland or Chicago Enroute Centers when the weather is good. How about with Approach control, or when the weather produces a cluster of major thunderstorms? I'm sure glad that I've not been to "La Garbage" (Guardia) or Boston for about a year or more.
I know nothing about the mishap in Boston, but starting many years ago I got so used to being pushed through an always over-saturated ATC system (this means time and space in the eastern US; maybe Stephen Hawking has a phrase for this?) that when I feel the need to change a clearance, it is very difficult to get through to the controller without blocking at least one call from another aircraft, thereby making it at least four times as difficult for the controller, who always has my sympathies-he/she did not create our system. On approach, a pilot who refuses to accept about 170 or 180 knots to the OM or approach Final Segment can feel that he simply can not handle what other pilots can "hack". But these are just my very generalized impressions of many, very typical Great Lakes and East Coast (from northern Florida to North Carolina the enroute situations seem ok in good weather) enroute airspace and approach scenarios at the larger airports. With certain exceptions, the problem is with our ATC system's inherited procedures, certain policies and how controllers are trained and expected to handle the many aircraft in the over-saturated areas. Doesn't each controller have to use standard procedures as with pilots, but be very flexible? To me it still is a mystery how it functions as well as it does. But are there reduced margins of error in the system because pilots try too hard to be team players? Many ATC controllers are retiring soon and must be replaced.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 10th Jul 2005 at 01:23.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny....
Thank you for banning me after my last post. I used the time wisely, and celebrated Independence day with even more revelry than usual.
Happy 4th of July, y'all, and remember that this Logan near-miss isn't the biggest controversy to have ever flared-up in the Boston area (230 years of not listening to "reason", and counting).
Handflying...
After getting handed-off to tower by Approach and you can't get your readback heard (especially if he's the one talking nonstop), then switch freq and report in with the tower. Tower's expecting you...he knows you're coming...controllers share information. Since your presence is known to twr, there's no use trundling along for miles not hearing him (probably calling you if you wait too long, wondering wtf). Your readback to Appch becomes less relevant with every passing moment, and besides, both pilots in the cockpit should hear the frequency (if not, why not?). Additionaly, the aircraft 3 or 5 miles ahead of you was assigned the tower freq...you should've already have it tuned-in on comm stby. Information is on the approach plates as well. When it's busy, there's no reason a tower freq should come as a suprise.
If someone had a stuck mic after you recieved your final vector and were cleared for the ILS, you'd just switch to tower eventually...it's no different.
I think many are confusing "comfort level" with safety. Nobody burned-up airwave time being instructed (and reading back the instruction) to "report established on the localizer", with a subsequent exhange when they actually were established either. Nobody was "cleared to descend on the glide" (with readback). Is that omitting the "essential"as well?
It's not "essential" all the time and in every place. There's a time and place it's essential to talk to tower to be cleared to land, so talk to him if you can't get a readback in edgewise to Appch. Approach and Tower expect you to switch. It's likely Appch'll just tell you to contact tower somewhere when he issues your appch clearance anyway.
I don't see any issue in your scenario....certainly not one detrimental to safety if the crew isn't asleep.
Ranger One....
Hearing the instruction and complying are essential. Readbacks (while normally important) are not essential, for if they were, the the ATC system would collapse the moment they were omitted even though they complied with the instructions.
I'll reiterate; because our readbacks to a controller are normally followed by a silence we assume to be his affirmation they (1) do NOT validate that he heard you (he could've dropped dead when he unkeyed, but to us his silence sounds the same), and (2) since it doesn't, it therefore can't validate that you heard him correctly in the first place.
Also, the higher the workload pressure, the greater chance that a mistake may be made on his part. Additionally, if you mis-heard an instruction and read back to him your mistake, there's a greater chance that he wouldn't recognize it in order to correct you. I.e., a hearback problem
This last occurance has indeed happened with resulting certificate action by the FAA, and I'll point out (again) that the onus of responsibility is STILL with the pilot even if a tape highlights (via readback) a controller hearback problem. In other words, don't for a moment think that reading-back with an ensuing controller silence is validating instructions, and therefore your defense for not hearing if a conflict results. But the reverse isn't true....you won't be held responsible if he makes a mistake and you follow his bogus instructions, even if you don't give a readback when it's not required or impossible.
Hearing the instructions correctly and complying are the bona fide Essentials. While readbacks raise the probability of good communication in most situations, because of their limitations they don't validate or guarantee anything for him or for you...ever... and in some situations only exacerbate workload pressure and raise the probability of a mistake because airwave time is HIS most precious commodity.
In such a circumstance, why do you want to burn it up re-telling him what everyone on your crew should have heard, when he obviously considers it of lesser importance? Together, just 7 (EWR, LGA, JFK, TEB, MMU, FRG, HPN) of the NYC-area airports have over 2,000,000 operations per year. That's not the full list by any means, not to mention those aircraft transiting the area. If the controller is ultra-busy, you have no way of knowing if he's taking on other traffic due to an emergency the guy sitting next to him is dealing with, or the Queen is vistiing and needs special airspace, or some guy just blew through his altitude over at TEB and is mucking around on EWR's approach corridor screwing everyone up. They do this every day and there's no smoking holes...yet some crew can't figure out a tower frequency or has to make a turn onto final (unlike Heathrow) then it must be dangerous? That limiting readbacks on occasion represents a fundamental flaw and dire consequences are merely lucked out of?
The rules of R/Ting ("Thou shalt read back?) were not handed down from the heavens engraved in stone, and R/Ting isn't and end unto itself no matter how good you think you sound. It's an adaptable tool to be judiciously, and if ATC is busy, the controller is a far better judge of how you should use it. He talks on the radio and communicates in order to get compliance more in a week than most pilots probably do in a year.
It's looking like the main complaint is simply that the above, ORD, ATL, DFW, and LAX aren't Heathrow, as if Heathrow is the standard by which all others should measured while also pretending Heathrow could operate the way it does with similar traffic and wx consideration. Or U.S. ATC should keep people on the ground until parity is reached, otherwise they're clearly taking "safety shortcuts" because if the whole world isn't doing it (under U.K. tuteledge I guess), then it must be wrong and dangerous, a lack of evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
MaxAlt....
Most people are in the Penalty Box because they've initiated putting themselves in there due to no gate, etc., and continuing to taxi in circles makes no sense. At O'hare, the Penalty Box is penalizing someone about as often as pax are "Ooo-ing" and "Aaah-ing" at the buildings they see while taxiing along the Scenic Route. Alas, you've never understood our humor.
Thank you for banning me after my last post. I used the time wisely, and celebrated Independence day with even more revelry than usual.
Happy 4th of July, y'all, and remember that this Logan near-miss isn't the biggest controversy to have ever flared-up in the Boston area (230 years of not listening to "reason", and counting).
Handflying...
After getting handed-off to tower by Approach and you can't get your readback heard (especially if he's the one talking nonstop), then switch freq and report in with the tower. Tower's expecting you...he knows you're coming...controllers share information. Since your presence is known to twr, there's no use trundling along for miles not hearing him (probably calling you if you wait too long, wondering wtf). Your readback to Appch becomes less relevant with every passing moment, and besides, both pilots in the cockpit should hear the frequency (if not, why not?). Additionaly, the aircraft 3 or 5 miles ahead of you was assigned the tower freq...you should've already have it tuned-in on comm stby. Information is on the approach plates as well. When it's busy, there's no reason a tower freq should come as a suprise.
If someone had a stuck mic after you recieved your final vector and were cleared for the ILS, you'd just switch to tower eventually...it's no different.
I think many are confusing "comfort level" with safety. Nobody burned-up airwave time being instructed (and reading back the instruction) to "report established on the localizer", with a subsequent exhange when they actually were established either. Nobody was "cleared to descend on the glide" (with readback). Is that omitting the "essential"as well?
It's not "essential" all the time and in every place. There's a time and place it's essential to talk to tower to be cleared to land, so talk to him if you can't get a readback in edgewise to Appch. Approach and Tower expect you to switch. It's likely Appch'll just tell you to contact tower somewhere when he issues your appch clearance anyway.
I don't see any issue in your scenario....certainly not one detrimental to safety if the crew isn't asleep.
Ranger One....
Hearing the instruction and complying are essential. Readbacks (while normally important) are not essential, for if they were, the the ATC system would collapse the moment they were omitted even though they complied with the instructions.
I'll reiterate; because our readbacks to a controller are normally followed by a silence we assume to be his affirmation they (1) do NOT validate that he heard you (he could've dropped dead when he unkeyed, but to us his silence sounds the same), and (2) since it doesn't, it therefore can't validate that you heard him correctly in the first place.
Also, the higher the workload pressure, the greater chance that a mistake may be made on his part. Additionally, if you mis-heard an instruction and read back to him your mistake, there's a greater chance that he wouldn't recognize it in order to correct you. I.e., a hearback problem
This last occurance has indeed happened with resulting certificate action by the FAA, and I'll point out (again) that the onus of responsibility is STILL with the pilot even if a tape highlights (via readback) a controller hearback problem. In other words, don't for a moment think that reading-back with an ensuing controller silence is validating instructions, and therefore your defense for not hearing if a conflict results. But the reverse isn't true....you won't be held responsible if he makes a mistake and you follow his bogus instructions, even if you don't give a readback when it's not required or impossible.
Hearing the instructions correctly and complying are the bona fide Essentials. While readbacks raise the probability of good communication in most situations, because of their limitations they don't validate or guarantee anything for him or for you...ever... and in some situations only exacerbate workload pressure and raise the probability of a mistake because airwave time is HIS most precious commodity.
In such a circumstance, why do you want to burn it up re-telling him what everyone on your crew should have heard, when he obviously considers it of lesser importance? Together, just 7 (EWR, LGA, JFK, TEB, MMU, FRG, HPN) of the NYC-area airports have over 2,000,000 operations per year. That's not the full list by any means, not to mention those aircraft transiting the area. If the controller is ultra-busy, you have no way of knowing if he's taking on other traffic due to an emergency the guy sitting next to him is dealing with, or the Queen is vistiing and needs special airspace, or some guy just blew through his altitude over at TEB and is mucking around on EWR's approach corridor screwing everyone up. They do this every day and there's no smoking holes...yet some crew can't figure out a tower frequency or has to make a turn onto final (unlike Heathrow) then it must be dangerous? That limiting readbacks on occasion represents a fundamental flaw and dire consequences are merely lucked out of?
The rules of R/Ting ("Thou shalt read back?) were not handed down from the heavens engraved in stone, and R/Ting isn't and end unto itself no matter how good you think you sound. It's an adaptable tool to be judiciously, and if ATC is busy, the controller is a far better judge of how you should use it. He talks on the radio and communicates in order to get compliance more in a week than most pilots probably do in a year.
It's looking like the main complaint is simply that the above, ORD, ATL, DFW, and LAX aren't Heathrow, as if Heathrow is the standard by which all others should measured while also pretending Heathrow could operate the way it does with similar traffic and wx consideration. Or U.S. ATC should keep people on the ground until parity is reached, otherwise they're clearly taking "safety shortcuts" because if the whole world isn't doing it (under U.K. tuteledge I guess), then it must be wrong and dangerous, a lack of evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
MaxAlt....
Most people are in the Penalty Box because they've initiated putting themselves in there due to no gate, etc., and continuing to taxi in circles makes no sense. At O'hare, the Penalty Box is penalizing someone about as often as pax are "Ooo-ing" and "Aaah-ing" at the buildings they see while taxiing along the Scenic Route. Alas, you've never understood our humor.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: England
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Controversial, moi?
AMF
The thing that truly disturbs me about your analysis is that it is completely arbitrary in that it is in the mind of the individual what he or she considers essential or important to read back. You have reasoned which readbacks are unnecessary in your mind.
I am sure we would all have many and varied answers to the question of what is essential to readback.
By your reasoning we end up with a type of anarchy and could be the reason that US pilots often sound, in the more disciplined European environment, a little gash, wholly undeserved because I am also sure that US pilots are as capable, safety concious and concientious as any others.
Where does it all end? We see the likes of Ryanair, Emirates, etc. all announcing big expansion plans. At some point somebody has to say enough and decide what is a safe and feasible level of traffic that ATC can reasonably handle at any given airport.
The thing that truly disturbs me about your analysis is that it is completely arbitrary in that it is in the mind of the individual what he or she considers essential or important to read back. You have reasoned which readbacks are unnecessary in your mind.
I am sure we would all have many and varied answers to the question of what is essential to readback.
By your reasoning we end up with a type of anarchy and could be the reason that US pilots often sound, in the more disciplined European environment, a little gash, wholly undeserved because I am also sure that US pilots are as capable, safety concious and concientious as any others.
Where does it all end? We see the likes of Ryanair, Emirates, etc. all announcing big expansion plans. At some point somebody has to say enough and decide what is a safe and feasible level of traffic that ATC can reasonably handle at any given airport.