Near Collision at BOS between Aer Lingus and US Air
Spitoon:
I could not agree with you more. Every airfield does indeed have its own problems and JFK and BOS are no exceptions. I have actually taken the trouble to visit NY Centre and that was an education. Do not expect to see many controllers wearing smart suits and ties but those boys and girls work their butts off trying to keep the traffic flowing in very difficult circumstances.
One of my priceless memories of my time based at JFK was one morning when they were landing 13L (Carnasie) taking off on 13R and trying to slot in some arrivals from the Pond on 22L.
The weather was pretty decent and Speedbird Concorde *** checked in on Tower frequency at the outer marker for 22L.
"Call me when you have the runway in sight" says the Tower.
"Dear Boy, I really don't see why I should have to call you when I have the airfield in sight when I have already been cleared to land in accordance with ICAO Blah, Blah, Blah, Sub-Annexe Blah, Blah, Blah". (NB: He obviously didn't even realise that landing clearances in that part of the world are conditional).
"Speedbird Concorde *** you are clear to land and after landing make a special point of calling me on 123.4"
Needless to say, everybody in the congo line went to 123.4.
It went something like this:
"Listen up carefully Buddy, the reason I want YOU to tell ME that you have the airport in sight is so that I then have a reasonable expectation of actually being able to see you and then I can arrange my departures and arrivals on 13R and 13L for the rest of the world and still allow you to land straight in from the Pond on 22L.
Now if you are unhappy with that solution then you can continue with the Carnasie VOR approach to 13L which I very much doubt you have enough fuel to complete".
The grovelling apology from "Speedbird Concorde ***" was wonderful to hear.
Make no mistake, these guys do a fantastic job and make very few mistakes. (Go arounds happen at LGW and LHR frequently and are usually caused by pilots).
I totally agree that we all have to learn from the serious incident at BOS but that is no excuse to have a go at the entire US Air Traffic service which I have found to be pretty damned good.
I could not agree with you more. Every airfield does indeed have its own problems and JFK and BOS are no exceptions. I have actually taken the trouble to visit NY Centre and that was an education. Do not expect to see many controllers wearing smart suits and ties but those boys and girls work their butts off trying to keep the traffic flowing in very difficult circumstances.
One of my priceless memories of my time based at JFK was one morning when they were landing 13L (Carnasie) taking off on 13R and trying to slot in some arrivals from the Pond on 22L.
The weather was pretty decent and Speedbird Concorde *** checked in on Tower frequency at the outer marker for 22L.
"Call me when you have the runway in sight" says the Tower.
"Dear Boy, I really don't see why I should have to call you when I have the airfield in sight when I have already been cleared to land in accordance with ICAO Blah, Blah, Blah, Sub-Annexe Blah, Blah, Blah". (NB: He obviously didn't even realise that landing clearances in that part of the world are conditional).
"Speedbird Concorde *** you are clear to land and after landing make a special point of calling me on 123.4"
Needless to say, everybody in the congo line went to 123.4.
It went something like this:
"Listen up carefully Buddy, the reason I want YOU to tell ME that you have the airport in sight is so that I then have a reasonable expectation of actually being able to see you and then I can arrange my departures and arrivals on 13R and 13L for the rest of the world and still allow you to land straight in from the Pond on 22L.
Now if you are unhappy with that solution then you can continue with the Carnasie VOR approach to 13L which I very much doubt you have enough fuel to complete".
The grovelling apology from "Speedbird Concorde ***" was wonderful to hear.
Make no mistake, these guys do a fantastic job and make very few mistakes. (Go arounds happen at LGW and LHR frequently and are usually caused by pilots).
I totally agree that we all have to learn from the serious incident at BOS but that is no excuse to have a go at the entire US Air Traffic service which I have found to be pretty damned good.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a mere passive observer all I can say is that all the talk and bluster about how good the various ATCs are is all fine and dandy, but doesn't actually address the hard fact that what would probably have been one of the world's worst air disasters was only averted, not by these controllers at all, but simply by the fact that, thank God, the US Air FO was on the ball.
What if the Aer Lingus crew had spotted the US Air flight a couple of seconds earlier and decided that they too should stay low?
It would be unbelievable that something as fundamental as this situation could ever be allowed to happen in any airfield, let alone one of the busiest in the world.
So, what I would like to know is, exactly what measures have been introduced to prevent this ever happening again? Someone earlier suggested the adoption of the old railway controllers baton method and this was dismissed as a wind-up. But at least it is more or less foolproof. Surely there has to be some sort of analogous method?
What if the Aer Lingus crew had spotted the US Air flight a couple of seconds earlier and decided that they too should stay low?
It would be unbelievable that something as fundamental as this situation could ever be allowed to happen in any airfield, let alone one of the busiest in the world.
So, what I would like to know is, exactly what measures have been introduced to prevent this ever happening again? Someone earlier suggested the adoption of the old railway controllers baton method and this was dismissed as a wind-up. But at least it is more or less foolproof. Surely there has to be some sort of analogous method?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
er...since time immemorial
similar to the "heavy" suffix it serves to remind ATC that the type may require special handling with respect to approach speeds, noise, wake turbulence and so forth.
similar to the "heavy" suffix it serves to remind ATC that the type may require special handling with respect to approach speeds, noise, wake turbulence and so forth.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: VA, USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The vast bulk of my flying experience has been within the US but I did have the privelege to fly in Japan for a few years. That experience taught me the value of standardized comm and I do cringe occasionally hearing some of the things said over radios in the US. I have also been guilty of this but I do try to stay "standard." What distresses me the most is when (pretty rarely) there is some foreign carrier who is clearly having trouble understanding but the controller just yells a little and then hands them off. Of course, this doesn't happen very often and overall I think ATC does an excellent job. By comparison, the Japanese ATC folks were VERY cautious and had extremely stringent requirements for traffic separation. They were so cautious that it was frequently infuriating. Of course, I do recall one or two incidents in Japan involving traffic separation.
My point is that ANY system (particularly a complex one) involving humans will fail at some point. Another poster mentioned that they should be designed to fail safe. I think that's a very good point and much more relevant than "who's ATC is the best." Clearly the system at KBOS was not designed that way. How could it be done better? I don't know given the constraints of geography at that location. Perhaps if we did a risk vs benefit analysis, we'd find that is the best way to do it. Maybe not. I don't know what the answer is. I do find it interesting, though, that it only took a few posts before somebody said "It's because the USA (atc) sucks."
My point is that ANY system (particularly a complex one) involving humans will fail at some point. Another poster mentioned that they should be designed to fail safe. I think that's a very good point and much more relevant than "who's ATC is the best." Clearly the system at KBOS was not designed that way. How could it be done better? I don't know given the constraints of geography at that location. Perhaps if we did a risk vs benefit analysis, we'd find that is the best way to do it. Maybe not. I don't know what the answer is. I do find it interesting, though, that it only took a few posts before somebody said "It's because the USA (atc) sucks."
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting how this thread would have progressed if the incident had been in Ireland with the same two planes and crews.
I imagine many of the American posters would be making much of the 'hero' copilot that saved thousands from death amid the failures of the substandard European ATC.
The crap some people have been posting about bringing your A game, or if you dont like it dont come here, is not really relevant. If someone has some safety concerns, they should be heard and considered. If their concerns are valid, it shouldn't matter where they are from.
Would that attitudes shown here be the same if some of the posters (Idunno for example) were from the US?
I am getting the impression that some people are in defense mode here, defending at all costs without really considering the issues.
The lack of professionalism being shown on this thread is amazing.
I imagine many of the American posters would be making much of the 'hero' copilot that saved thousands from death amid the failures of the substandard European ATC.
The crap some people have been posting about bringing your A game, or if you dont like it dont come here, is not really relevant. If someone has some safety concerns, they should be heard and considered. If their concerns are valid, it shouldn't matter where they are from.
Would that attitudes shown here be the same if some of the posters (Idunno for example) were from the US?
I am getting the impression that some people are in defense mode here, defending at all costs without really considering the issues.
The lack of professionalism being shown on this thread is amazing.
Good post millhouse21. I'm not interested where it happened, only WHY and HOW CAN IT BE AVOIDED in the future. American controllers may do things differently to us Europeans but I'm certain that SAFE & expeditious handling of traffic is their top priority. Europe or USA, procedures will have flaws and these will surface from time to time. We learn and we move on. My sympathy goes out to the two controllers involved. Just how close this may have been to a catastrophe will haunt them for years to come. They came on duty that day to do a good job in almost constant high pressure environment.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: northamerica
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
busiest airport
ATL does more passengers, but ORD does more take- offs and landings. Those little r-jets take as much time and effort as a jumbo jet but do not have as many people. I still would not like to run into one of them.
I want to apologize to any ATC controllers in case some of my previous comments are judgemental or overly critical of the US ATC system. If there is political pressure from those outside of the ATC system, then my apology does not apply to them. You controllers all do a superb job, which few if any pilots can comprehend-even in good weather. One major problem for all of us consists of the huge number of blocked radio calls. This, along with other crew-concept failures, contributed to the nightmare at Tenerife in '77, based on a tv program and written reports.
Here in the US, if a pilot replies with the classic "roger wilco", he is almost laughed at by the other pilot-especially if the FO replies with this. We consciously or subc. try to fit in to our own "systems"/ corporate cultures, and try to avoid ridicule from those with whom we work (or play).
Many of us tend to abbreviate read-backs, in my case partly because an extended, detailed acknowledgement of a descent with a heading plus airspeed change will result in the last part blocked anyway by the next person (usually a pilot) waiting for his/her turn to check in, or request a heading change around a cumulonimbus cell, assuming that the altitude change will be the only reply from the previous pilot, for example. I would never omit a detailed reply to hold short at runway **R or hold in position, takeoff etc. But we often have no idea if part of our transmission is blocked, although these are the most critical clearances that I can imagine. Having very similar flight numbers for "Southeast Airlines 292" and (...blocked call or late transmission...) [North]"---East 282" causes many problems on the same frequencies-this is quite frustrating and hazardous.
As for ATC versus pilot perspectives, we can only hear/see things from inside our airplane, and only see a part of the picture that our controllers do.
It is difficult for me to understand the need for multiple runway changes (LAX) while in a very slick airplane that refuses to slow down when on an arrival that has no level-offs. That is my biggest gripe, except for the available technology which could have prevented many blocked radio transmissions (too expensive or too time-consuming to install?) . If I ever decide to begin and manage to finish training on the Airbus, I hope that at least two legs on IOE will go to LAX.
Of course much of this might have nothing to do with the mishap at BOS.
Here in the US, if a pilot replies with the classic "roger wilco", he is almost laughed at by the other pilot-especially if the FO replies with this. We consciously or subc. try to fit in to our own "systems"/ corporate cultures, and try to avoid ridicule from those with whom we work (or play).
Many of us tend to abbreviate read-backs, in my case partly because an extended, detailed acknowledgement of a descent with a heading plus airspeed change will result in the last part blocked anyway by the next person (usually a pilot) waiting for his/her turn to check in, or request a heading change around a cumulonimbus cell, assuming that the altitude change will be the only reply from the previous pilot, for example. I would never omit a detailed reply to hold short at runway **R or hold in position, takeoff etc. But we often have no idea if part of our transmission is blocked, although these are the most critical clearances that I can imagine. Having very similar flight numbers for "Southeast Airlines 292" and (...blocked call or late transmission...) [North]"---East 282" causes many problems on the same frequencies-this is quite frustrating and hazardous.
As for ATC versus pilot perspectives, we can only hear/see things from inside our airplane, and only see a part of the picture that our controllers do.
It is difficult for me to understand the need for multiple runway changes (LAX) while in a very slick airplane that refuses to slow down when on an arrival that has no level-offs. That is my biggest gripe, except for the available technology which could have prevented many blocked radio transmissions (too expensive or too time-consuming to install?) . If I ever decide to begin and manage to finish training on the Airbus, I hope that at least two legs on IOE will go to LAX.
Of course much of this might have nothing to do with the mishap at BOS.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 29th Jun 2005 at 03:14.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<"Dear Boy, I really don't see why I should have to call you when I have the airfield in sight when I have already been cleared to land in accordance with ICAO Blah, Blah, Blah, Sub-Annexe Blah, Blah, Blah". (NB: He obviously didn't even realise that landing clearances in that part of the world are conditional).>>
I worked with Concorde for most of it's operational life; spoke to the crews almost every working day and met a few of them. I seriously doubt the truth of this story and suspect that it was dreamt up and passed around a million times.
Can anyone - pilot or controller - seriously imagine a pilot making such a statement on the R/T?
And, yes, the word "Concorde" was always part of the callsign..
I worked with Concorde for most of it's operational life; spoke to the crews almost every working day and met a few of them. I seriously doubt the truth of this story and suspect that it was dreamt up and passed around a million times.
Can anyone - pilot or controller - seriously imagine a pilot making such a statement on the R/T?
And, yes, the word "Concorde" was always part of the callsign..
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMF,
I find this point of view concerning. What you appear to be saying that a review could find an error on the part of the pilot, and this would make it a non ATC error, and that therefore there would be no point sharing the findings of the review with the company in question.
Most folks I fly with are all to aware of their own ability to make an error and would welcome the feedback to see what mistake they had made in order to avoid repetition. Thats the whole point of a safety reporting process surely. Or am I missing something?
CPB
Your mate and Company probably didn't get any feedback because it's pointless for ATC to spend the time doing so, even when they review it. Perhaps the review found that your mate wasn't at an assigned speed. Maybe your mate expects an apology because maybe he thinks he's operationally perfect. But maybe your mate helped create the conflict in the first place. Maybe, your story is nonsense.
Most folks I fly with are all to aware of their own ability to make an error and would welcome the feedback to see what mistake they had made in order to avoid repetition. Thats the whole point of a safety reporting process surely. Or am I missing something?
CPB
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HeathDir.....
Judging by the superior-attitude/Yanks-are-presumed-to-be-stupid posts rampant on this thread (still non-deleted) regarding ATC issues in spite of factual, historical evidence to the contrary, I not only find it believable, I find the related R/T from Concorde's cockpit probable.
It's completely within the realm of possiblity that he shared the same attitude....that he possessed an all-knowing grasp on the Big ATC Picture, with the same ingrained derision for anything he considered to be "non-standard" to ICAO ops or phraseology as many here do, and use(d) it to jump on as evidence for incompetence. Of course, it could have been IDunno...flustered to the point of breaking about not being spoon-fed track miles.
Personally, I think it's a funny story. But I doubt that it was made-up...you see, nobody in the U.S. would realize what a major insult (so major you use it as evidence it couldn't have happened!) the lapse in R/T (and not ATC awareness) would mean in terms of embarrasment not only to BA, but indeed to the entire cadre of UK pilots worldwide. It would be an insult to what is the proudest part of any flight...how they sound on the radio. This point is far too obscure for Americans to develop a joke about.
We just don't get things like that. After all, we still sling non-ICAO phraseology like "Heavy" around in the hopes somebody else might concerned with triflings such as wake turbulence (apparently, it doesn't exist in Europe, so no worries!). It's also nice to see that recently JAA ops require one to follow an RA unless there's a visual confirmation of separation. I'm so glad to see they've finally made it into the 21st century.
And the next time I'm instructed (ICAO-style) to "Line up and wait..behind the landing aircraft" while it's still on a 3 mile final, I'll just keep hoping that nobody ever transmits over that last little bit of important information if the vis isn't good. After all, I've personally done 2 G/As that I can remember because the guy holding short didn't get the last bit.
I'm still waiting the report and feedback to me for those G/As (which, thanks to this thread I've just learned should be forthcoming). After all, someone here assured me that when things like that occur, they're dealt with immediately by the proper authories and changes made poste haste followed by written reports because (I've also learned) nothing in UK/Eurocontrol/ICAO ops remains unrefined to anything less than the highest point of safety, and they swing into regulatory action after every glitch and efficiently process it out. So I was told, anyway, by the same people who knowingly presume that nothing like this exists in unsafe Cowboyland.
In fact, these same authorities have such an all-encompassing, enforcing-to-effect-change power, the latest rumor is that France's ATC might actually begin to be held to speaking ICAO-standard English about the time we launch the first Starship Enterprise.
But I'm sure I've overstepped my bounds again. Citing comparative deficiencies Eastward instead of Westward is....well, it just isn't done.
My apologies, and I realize now deletion is probably imminent.
CPB....
As it turns out, his story was nonsense. He stated himself that the the vector his mate observed on the ILS was "legal" (his words). The "incident" was in fact, not an incident after all. If minimum separation wasn\'t lost (500\' alt in this case, both aircraft under positive control, and in Class B airspace like JFK), a quick review of the tapes would show it. There\'s nothing more to be done.
That this was an event requiring a report to his company is subjective policy, and irrelevent. That this event was worrisome to the point of desiring a follow-up by his mate and complaining to the world about it, is also subjective, and irrelevent to the issue of ATC safety. It merely speaks to his mate\'s comfort level at seeing something he rarely sees (most of us lost that apprehension long ago when flying in truly busy airspace). That\'s not ATC\'s problem...their task is separation, and in Class B for both IFR and VFR traffic, VFR traffic frequently assigned +500\' altitudes.
I can\'t even imagine what would go through his mate\'s head flying a garden-variety ILS PRM approach with parallel traffic, minimum separation in all quadrants. With a hand-flown breakout maneuver if necessary. If IDunno\'s threshold of comfort and "expertise" tells him that everyday arrivals into JFK are nerve-wracking and "dangerous", wait until he has to fly one of those!
Judging by the superior-attitude/Yanks-are-presumed-to-be-stupid posts rampant on this thread (still non-deleted) regarding ATC issues in spite of factual, historical evidence to the contrary, I not only find it believable, I find the related R/T from Concorde's cockpit probable.
It's completely within the realm of possiblity that he shared the same attitude....that he possessed an all-knowing grasp on the Big ATC Picture, with the same ingrained derision for anything he considered to be "non-standard" to ICAO ops or phraseology as many here do, and use(d) it to jump on as evidence for incompetence. Of course, it could have been IDunno...flustered to the point of breaking about not being spoon-fed track miles.
Personally, I think it's a funny story. But I doubt that it was made-up...you see, nobody in the U.S. would realize what a major insult (so major you use it as evidence it couldn't have happened!) the lapse in R/T (and not ATC awareness) would mean in terms of embarrasment not only to BA, but indeed to the entire cadre of UK pilots worldwide. It would be an insult to what is the proudest part of any flight...how they sound on the radio. This point is far too obscure for Americans to develop a joke about.
We just don't get things like that. After all, we still sling non-ICAO phraseology like "Heavy" around in the hopes somebody else might concerned with triflings such as wake turbulence (apparently, it doesn't exist in Europe, so no worries!). It's also nice to see that recently JAA ops require one to follow an RA unless there's a visual confirmation of separation. I'm so glad to see they've finally made it into the 21st century.
And the next time I'm instructed (ICAO-style) to "Line up and wait..behind the landing aircraft" while it's still on a 3 mile final, I'll just keep hoping that nobody ever transmits over that last little bit of important information if the vis isn't good. After all, I've personally done 2 G/As that I can remember because the guy holding short didn't get the last bit.
I'm still waiting the report and feedback to me for those G/As (which, thanks to this thread I've just learned should be forthcoming). After all, someone here assured me that when things like that occur, they're dealt with immediately by the proper authories and changes made poste haste followed by written reports because (I've also learned) nothing in UK/Eurocontrol/ICAO ops remains unrefined to anything less than the highest point of safety, and they swing into regulatory action after every glitch and efficiently process it out. So I was told, anyway, by the same people who knowingly presume that nothing like this exists in unsafe Cowboyland.
In fact, these same authorities have such an all-encompassing, enforcing-to-effect-change power, the latest rumor is that France's ATC might actually begin to be held to speaking ICAO-standard English about the time we launch the first Starship Enterprise.
But I'm sure I've overstepped my bounds again. Citing comparative deficiencies Eastward instead of Westward is....well, it just isn't done.
My apologies, and I realize now deletion is probably imminent.
CPB....
As it turns out, his story was nonsense. He stated himself that the the vector his mate observed on the ILS was "legal" (his words). The "incident" was in fact, not an incident after all. If minimum separation wasn\'t lost (500\' alt in this case, both aircraft under positive control, and in Class B airspace like JFK), a quick review of the tapes would show it. There\'s nothing more to be done.
That this was an event requiring a report to his company is subjective policy, and irrelevent. That this event was worrisome to the point of desiring a follow-up by his mate and complaining to the world about it, is also subjective, and irrelevent to the issue of ATC safety. It merely speaks to his mate\'s comfort level at seeing something he rarely sees (most of us lost that apprehension long ago when flying in truly busy airspace). That\'s not ATC\'s problem...their task is separation, and in Class B for both IFR and VFR traffic, VFR traffic frequently assigned +500\' altitudes.
I can\'t even imagine what would go through his mate\'s head flying a garden-variety ILS PRM approach with parallel traffic, minimum separation in all quadrants. With a hand-flown breakout maneuver if necessary. If IDunno\'s threshold of comfort and "expertise" tells him that everyday arrivals into JFK are nerve-wracking and "dangerous", wait until he has to fly one of those!
Last edited by AMF; 28th Jun 2005 at 08:43.
AMF, the correct phraseology is "behind the landing ***, line up and wait runway **". (precisely to obviate the risk you refer to)
The Heavy prefix is not used in UK because ATC provide vortex wake spacing.
Stick to the facts, there's a better chance people will listen to you.
The Heavy prefix is not used in UK because ATC provide vortex wake spacing.
Stick to the facts, there's a better chance people will listen to you.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad someone picked up that poor R/T quoted by AMF!
Re: the Concorde incident, all I can say is that I am amazed and can only assume some pilots must change dramatically when they enter US airspace. That sort of behaviour is unheard of at Heathrow (as far as I know!). I've experienced thousands of "non-standard" R/T incidents but I have never heard of an R/T exchange like that quoted. There are bound to be times when little niggles come across, but it seems totally out of character for any pilot to behave like that. Most of my dealings with crews - and I worked more than a million flights in my career - were polite and with standard R/T. Humourous interludes were not unknown - and greatly appreciated - but the sort of verbal haranguing by both sides quoted above I have never experienced. The pilot was obviously wrong, but ATC should have him telephone to discuss the matter rather than mouthing off on the R/T for all to hear. I'd stilll like to see a proper transcript because I know only too well how stories get changed as time goes by...
Incidentally, I'm not biased for or against any nationality. I've worked with American pilots since the mid-60s. Always found them courteous and hold them in high regard.
Re: the Concorde incident, all I can say is that I am amazed and can only assume some pilots must change dramatically when they enter US airspace. That sort of behaviour is unheard of at Heathrow (as far as I know!). I've experienced thousands of "non-standard" R/T incidents but I have never heard of an R/T exchange like that quoted. There are bound to be times when little niggles come across, but it seems totally out of character for any pilot to behave like that. Most of my dealings with crews - and I worked more than a million flights in my career - were polite and with standard R/T. Humourous interludes were not unknown - and greatly appreciated - but the sort of verbal haranguing by both sides quoted above I have never experienced. The pilot was obviously wrong, but ATC should have him telephone to discuss the matter rather than mouthing off on the R/T for all to hear. I'd stilll like to see a proper transcript because I know only too well how stories get changed as time goes by...
Incidentally, I'm not biased for or against any nationality. I've worked with American pilots since the mid-60s. Always found them courteous and hold them in high regard.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Surrey
Age: 46
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not going to join in the slagging off of other controllers here, but what seems worrying to me is that people in the US seem to equate number of a/c moved with standard of ATC, ie more=better.
I would be of the opinion (as I suspect the passengers would be) that its not the quantity of traffic shifted, but the manner in which its done. Just because you can move x ammounts of a/c in an hour/month/year, doesn't mean you do it safely.
I could easily sit doing departures and just say "clear for take off, clear for take off, clear for take off" with scant regard for departure separations or vortex wake, and shift a hell of a lot more traffic, but in my opinion that would make me a worse controller!!
And saying its the pilots responsibility to accept such clearances or "stay away" is just compounding the mistakes!!!
My tuppence worth.
FB
I would be of the opinion (as I suspect the passengers would be) that its not the quantity of traffic shifted, but the manner in which its done. Just because you can move x ammounts of a/c in an hour/month/year, doesn't mean you do it safely.
I could easily sit doing departures and just say "clear for take off, clear for take off, clear for take off" with scant regard for departure separations or vortex wake, and shift a hell of a lot more traffic, but in my opinion that would make me a worse controller!!
And saying its the pilots responsibility to accept such clearances or "stay away" is just compounding the mistakes!!!
My tuppence worth.
FB
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Del Prado, the really correct way to say it is "behind the landing *** line up and wait runway **, behind". Twice the behind, to avoid it to be blocked neither in the beginning, nor in the end of the transmission.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the edge of reason
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk about handbags at 5 paces!!
Fact is there are fundamental differences between ALL ATC units/airports/nations/centres etc.
The purpose of ICAO procedures is to ensure that all pilots and all ATC officers are singing from the same songsheet, irrespective of the geographic location they occupy. It is clear that ICao is currently failing in this regard.
In terms of the USA there are airports who perform better on a day to day basis than others, this is often due to runway layout, sometimes apparently due to better training and more professional approach, often due to traffic levels and often due to proximity to other busy airfields.
However, I feel the main problems with ALL uS airfields are the systems and procedures in place. By this I mean such things as conditional clearances ie. you are 4th on the approach but are still given landing clearance, no problem on a gin clear day but a real problem on a gin clear night!
Atlanta 8th November 1994, night, good vis a B727 landed on top of a Beechcraft which was slow clearing the runway (perhaps he didn't bring his "A" game!). The B727 had been cleared to land but could not see the Beech in the lights of the runway, deaths on the Beech resulted. That person died not because of any particular human failing but because of the procedure!
Airports like BOS with cross runways are also a danger, there are many of these in the US. (SFO, ORD, JFK, MIA to name but a few, very busy ones). The way to make these place safer is to put in place safer procedures, not more dangerous ones like LAHSO!
The failure at BOS, whilst a human failing also highlights what is a very dangerous system of ATC operation. Things DO need to change in the US, for the benefit of ALL aviators and passengers who are at the mercy of some dubious practices
Fact is there are fundamental differences between ALL ATC units/airports/nations/centres etc.
The purpose of ICAO procedures is to ensure that all pilots and all ATC officers are singing from the same songsheet, irrespective of the geographic location they occupy. It is clear that ICao is currently failing in this regard.
In terms of the USA there are airports who perform better on a day to day basis than others, this is often due to runway layout, sometimes apparently due to better training and more professional approach, often due to traffic levels and often due to proximity to other busy airfields.
However, I feel the main problems with ALL uS airfields are the systems and procedures in place. By this I mean such things as conditional clearances ie. you are 4th on the approach but are still given landing clearance, no problem on a gin clear day but a real problem on a gin clear night!
Atlanta 8th November 1994, night, good vis a B727 landed on top of a Beechcraft which was slow clearing the runway (perhaps he didn't bring his "A" game!). The B727 had been cleared to land but could not see the Beech in the lights of the runway, deaths on the Beech resulted. That person died not because of any particular human failing but because of the procedure!
Airports like BOS with cross runways are also a danger, there are many of these in the US. (SFO, ORD, JFK, MIA to name but a few, very busy ones). The way to make these place safer is to put in place safer procedures, not more dangerous ones like LAHSO!
The failure at BOS, whilst a human failing also highlights what is a very dangerous system of ATC operation. Things DO need to change in the US, for the benefit of ALL aviators and passengers who are at the mercy of some dubious practices
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Citizen of the World
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To PPRUNE et al,
Why do you allow such diatribe and rubbish to be spouted by those who want to hijack the thread.
Please guys keep to the topic whci was a near collision. If you want to discuss the merits or otherwise of US ATC versus ATC elsewhere then start a thread to do just that.
Here's one who's fed up with decent threads being hijacked by people who have a different agenda. I'm all for freedom of speech - in the appropriate place. By the way I've never flown in the US so I have no knowledge of how godd or bad ATC is at busy airports. However, between ATC and pilots it seems that you're all doing quite well as very few of you manage to hit each other.
Why do you allow such diatribe and rubbish to be spouted by those who want to hijack the thread.
Please guys keep to the topic whci was a near collision. If you want to discuss the merits or otherwise of US ATC versus ATC elsewhere then start a thread to do just that.
Here's one who's fed up with decent threads being hijacked by people who have a different agenda. I'm all for freedom of speech - in the appropriate place. By the way I've never flown in the US so I have no knowledge of how godd or bad ATC is at busy airports. However, between ATC and pilots it seems that you're all doing quite well as very few of you manage to hit each other.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Del Prado. When was the phraseology changed back from "After the landing" to "Behind the landing"??? If is has changed then it was a highly dangerous move IMHO.
H.Finn. Presumably you are not a controller?
H.Finn. Presumably you are not a controller?