Near Collision at BOS between Aer Lingus and US Air
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Near 50 West
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMF I must agree with your analysis that there are many who are unqualified to pass comment on US ATC procedures, I am not going to rant about my own experience except to say in the main I find the US ATC to a very high standard. However there are times when the sheer volume of traffic necessitates a compromise in this standard. For example the read back of ATC instructions when airborne. I understand that the airtime is busy and it is physically impossible to get in a reply, however this does not make it acceptable. Recently arrived in JFK after 13 hour flight, almost dark, visibility not much better then 4sm. We were given a CRI onto 13L. There are presently no approach lights, centre lights and no edge lights. The F/O was less then 1000 hours and less then 300 on type, English level 3 at the most. Given speed control to CRI of min approach speed then after passing CRI handed over to tower and told to maintain 170kts. The reply was not ‘Roger’ or ‘Wilco’ but simply ‘unable’. The wind at the time was 190/15. Vectors to an ILS 22L would have been my preference, I was working pretty much on my own and had been on duty for almost 15 hours. Once again the situation was not unsafe but was less safe then it could have been. Remember not all crews that fly into the US have the luxury of English as their 1st language, not all crews have the experience level you obviously enjoy, (I get max 2 landings per month) and no we don’t fly there every day, in fact the last time I was in NY was over 6 months ago. Many airlines do not operate bid systems and so the option of not going to the US is a non starter. As the old saying goes ‘why make life difficult when with a little more effort you can make it bloody impossible’
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Salzburg
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have often been sitting at US airports watching the traffic and listening to ATC at the same time. One of my favourites in that regard has always been Grand Canyon Airport, which amazed me to no end in how efficiently they operated a solely procedural separation, and got to grips with about 6000 movements a day within about 12 hours a day on a single runway.
Within all my amazement and admiration of those controllers I do remember one particular scene, that I would hope never repeated but I am sure is being repeated on almost a daily basis ...
Three (piston) commercial aircraft were waiting for departure, having run through all run up and having announced to be ready for departure already. At the same time 3 aircraft were on downwind, the first of them very close to turning base.
I could hear the controller taking a deep breath and then issuing following clearances without ever taking a breath in between (I omit the call signs, just number the aircraft according to their landing and departing sequence) and omit several details (the controller did use all the required phrases however and provided all necessary details in each of the clearances) ...
Number 1, cleared for takeoff
Number 2, position on runway and hold
Number 3, position on runway and hold
Number 1, cleared to land, winds ..., QNH
Number 2, cleared to land
Number 3, cleared to land
Number 2, cleared for takeoff runway 03
Number 1, continue approach (the airplane seemed to level off and obviously preparing a go-around)
Number 3, cleared for takeoff runway 03 (at this point, the first landing aircraft had already reached the lights, and it was very obvious the pilot wasn't sure what to do - he deliberately held the airplane high and did not descend anymore, but did not yet climb out)
Controller now yelling (still hadn't caught any breath in between!): NUMBER 1, CONTINUE APPROACH
Now the first landing aircraft started to descend again (already quite a bit over the lights), while the last departing plane started rolling. When the landing aircraft touched down, the departing aircraft was about 300 meters down the runway and still well on the ground. When it finally rotated and got airborne, the minimum distance between the two planes had well been below 200 meters.
It also needs to be said, that had the first landing aircraft really executed a go-around, they would most certainly have created a conflict with the departing aircraft as soon as those got airborne. The usual practise of just "shifting" to the right, or even to the left, during go-around was made impossible by the fact, that aircraft were on down wind on both (left- and right hand) patterns.
I leave it to every reader to draw conclusions from this scene, whether that operation was still safe or whether this extremely stretched or went beyond the limits.
Certainly there are very decisive differences to the way how ATC operates in the US and in Europe (just the fact, that multiple takeoff and landing clearances can be issued in the US underlines that fact, as in Europe the aircraft being cleared for takeoff or landing uniquely "owns" the runway until the runway has been vacated).
Another scene comes to mind, I encountered, this time in Las Vegas while departing to Grand Canyon on one of the commercial "sightseeing" flights as a passenger (without a possibility to listen to ATC) ... We had taxied into position already and were holding for a while, when our pilot pushed the throttles forward and released the brakes. The copilot however immediately slammed the throttles back to idle and stumped onto the brakes very hard, so that we probably didn't move more than perhaps 10 meters. Shortly thereafter we could see a B737 lift off on the crossing runway, just starting to rotate as it went across our runway. The copilot then turned to us and explained, that ATC had issued simultaneous takeoff clearances, a fact which he had picked up, and he therefore had rejected our takeoff.
I didn't believe that explanation at the time, but rather thought our pilot might have mistaken the takeoff clearance for that B737 as his takeoff clearance (which shows my believe in the skill and performance of US ATCs) - today however I am not so sure anymore, whether my assessment at the time was correct or not.
Just two examples that highlight some issues, that may or may not need more careful review.
Simon
Within all my amazement and admiration of those controllers I do remember one particular scene, that I would hope never repeated but I am sure is being repeated on almost a daily basis ...
Three (piston) commercial aircraft were waiting for departure, having run through all run up and having announced to be ready for departure already. At the same time 3 aircraft were on downwind, the first of them very close to turning base.
I could hear the controller taking a deep breath and then issuing following clearances without ever taking a breath in between (I omit the call signs, just number the aircraft according to their landing and departing sequence) and omit several details (the controller did use all the required phrases however and provided all necessary details in each of the clearances) ...
Number 1, cleared for takeoff
Number 2, position on runway and hold
Number 3, position on runway and hold
Number 1, cleared to land, winds ..., QNH
Number 2, cleared to land
Number 3, cleared to land
Number 2, cleared for takeoff runway 03
Number 1, continue approach (the airplane seemed to level off and obviously preparing a go-around)
Number 3, cleared for takeoff runway 03 (at this point, the first landing aircraft had already reached the lights, and it was very obvious the pilot wasn't sure what to do - he deliberately held the airplane high and did not descend anymore, but did not yet climb out)
Controller now yelling (still hadn't caught any breath in between!): NUMBER 1, CONTINUE APPROACH
Now the first landing aircraft started to descend again (already quite a bit over the lights), while the last departing plane started rolling. When the landing aircraft touched down, the departing aircraft was about 300 meters down the runway and still well on the ground. When it finally rotated and got airborne, the minimum distance between the two planes had well been below 200 meters.
It also needs to be said, that had the first landing aircraft really executed a go-around, they would most certainly have created a conflict with the departing aircraft as soon as those got airborne. The usual practise of just "shifting" to the right, or even to the left, during go-around was made impossible by the fact, that aircraft were on down wind on both (left- and right hand) patterns.
I leave it to every reader to draw conclusions from this scene, whether that operation was still safe or whether this extremely stretched or went beyond the limits.
Certainly there are very decisive differences to the way how ATC operates in the US and in Europe (just the fact, that multiple takeoff and landing clearances can be issued in the US underlines that fact, as in Europe the aircraft being cleared for takeoff or landing uniquely "owns" the runway until the runway has been vacated).
Another scene comes to mind, I encountered, this time in Las Vegas while departing to Grand Canyon on one of the commercial "sightseeing" flights as a passenger (without a possibility to listen to ATC) ... We had taxied into position already and were holding for a while, when our pilot pushed the throttles forward and released the brakes. The copilot however immediately slammed the throttles back to idle and stumped onto the brakes very hard, so that we probably didn't move more than perhaps 10 meters. Shortly thereafter we could see a B737 lift off on the crossing runway, just starting to rotate as it went across our runway. The copilot then turned to us and explained, that ATC had issued simultaneous takeoff clearances, a fact which he had picked up, and he therefore had rejected our takeoff.
I didn't believe that explanation at the time, but rather thought our pilot might have mistaken the takeoff clearance for that B737 as his takeoff clearance (which shows my believe in the skill and performance of US ATCs) - today however I am not so sure anymore, whether my assessment at the time was correct or not.
Just two examples that highlight some issues, that may or may not need more careful review.
Simon
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Simon, but as with many "enthusiasts" you talk a lot of "twaddle".
Grand canyon (south rim) airport as I recall from my last visit was something of a quiet backwater. It must have changed if it handles 6000 movements in 12 hours. That would be one movement every 7 seconds !! A truly amazing feat.
"I could hear the controller taking a deep breath". You could ?
"very obvious the pilot wasn't sure what to do". Was it ?
"Controller now yelling (still hadn't caught any breath in between!). Hadn't he and wouldn't his "yelling" have distorted the transmission ?
"The usual practise of just "shifting" to the right, or even to the left, during go-around was made impossible by the fact, that aircraft were on down wind on both (left- and right hand) patterns." Is that the usual practice ?
"QNH" in the US ?
"Just two examples that highlight some issues, that may or may not need more careful review." Right !!
Grand canyon (south rim) airport as I recall from my last visit was something of a quiet backwater. It must have changed if it handles 6000 movements in 12 hours. That would be one movement every 7 seconds !! A truly amazing feat.
"I could hear the controller taking a deep breath". You could ?
"very obvious the pilot wasn't sure what to do". Was it ?
"Controller now yelling (still hadn't caught any breath in between!). Hadn't he and wouldn't his "yelling" have distorted the transmission ?
"The usual practise of just "shifting" to the right, or even to the left, during go-around was made impossible by the fact, that aircraft were on down wind on both (left- and right hand) patterns." Is that the usual practice ?
"QNH" in the US ?
"Just two examples that highlight some issues, that may or may not need more careful review." Right !!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely all that anyone wants is to operate in a SAFE environment. By "anyone" I mean Pilots, ATCOs Cabin Crew, SLF and those unfortunate enough to live around an airport - all of whom will have an opinion based on their own observations, requirements and experience...each valid as long as it's accurate. I make no observations on any particular country or region merely from the view point of safety. AMF et al believe the best way to avoid conflict in US airspace is to stay out of it if you can't hack it, unfortunately that option is not open to a large number of crews from other countries and other cultures ref Jumbowannabe's post. Likewise experience will vary - how else will anyone become "very" experienced? - the fact of the matter is that if you have foreign aircraft in your airspace they will not be as experienced as the flyers of the homeland imagine if you will a US pilot operating his first international flight to an African nation after having 15 years domestic flying I am sure that he would find things very different and even confusing whilst being an extremely accomplished and experienced aviator. Providing the ATCO is licensed and the pilots operating the flights are licensed and the respective countries Aviation Authorities are happy to be operating in that airspace one must administrate,regulate and control with regard to flight safety to the lowest common denominator in terms of experience, language and human factors. The truth is that commercial pressures, political niceties, and national pride often impinge on this theory and inadequate compromises arise worldwide.
With regard to pushing the aircraft's flight envelope - there is a tragic thread on Rumours and News about a relatively inexperienced Pinnacle crew who tried just that.
It is not my intention to offend or point fingers - I'd welcome comment form anyone.
With regard to pushing the aircraft's flight envelope - there is a tragic thread on Rumours and News about a relatively inexperienced Pinnacle crew who tried just that.
It is not my intention to offend or point fingers - I'd welcome comment form anyone.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Salzburg
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello, Bealzebub,
>>"I could hear the controller taking a deep breath". You could ?
At that point, just before he started to issue the commands, I could hear him taking a deep breath (while still taking the breath and preparing the commands he already had pushed the talk button), later on - between the commands - I couldn't hear any more breath, as he issued the commands in just one stream of words without taking a breath in between.
>>"The usual practise of just "shifting" to the right ... " Is that the usual practice ?
As far as I am aware of, yes, to give room to the departing aircraft. It's certainly not a good idea to stay right atop of the departing airplane (and thus, besides producing a possible conflict, loose it out of sight, too, under visual flight rules).
>>"QNH" in the US ?
Sorry, habit (using European phraseology) - and one should never type in a hurry ;-)
There are two more errors in my previous post ... A 0 too many (600, not 6000 movements/day in average - otherwise they would shift nearly as much traffic as KDFW), and it was runway 21, not 03.
Nonetheless, those (misreported) details don't invalidate the encounters, which do raise some questions as far as I am concerned.
Simon
>>"I could hear the controller taking a deep breath". You could ?
At that point, just before he started to issue the commands, I could hear him taking a deep breath (while still taking the breath and preparing the commands he already had pushed the talk button), later on - between the commands - I couldn't hear any more breath, as he issued the commands in just one stream of words without taking a breath in between.
>>"The usual practise of just "shifting" to the right ... " Is that the usual practice ?
As far as I am aware of, yes, to give room to the departing aircraft. It's certainly not a good idea to stay right atop of the departing airplane (and thus, besides producing a possible conflict, loose it out of sight, too, under visual flight rules).
>>"QNH" in the US ?
Sorry, habit (using European phraseology) - and one should never type in a hurry ;-)
There are two more errors in my previous post ... A 0 too many (600, not 6000 movements/day in average - otherwise they would shift nearly as much traffic as KDFW), and it was runway 21, not 03.
Nonetheless, those (misreported) details don't invalidate the encounters, which do raise some questions as far as I am concerned.
Simon
Last edited by Austrian Simon; 1st Jul 2005 at 12:36.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, now that we've had a chance to make our points, I'd like to ask Idunno, AMF, West Coast and a few of the others that are painting each others ATC system with such broad strokes to try and get back to somewhat more serious debate, without all the childish, nationalistic prods. It's bad enough trying to keep this debate to the issues and by those actually involved in BOTH systems in their daily lives.
I feel that I'm qualified to take part as I have experience of both systems, as well as others all over the world. I have an FAA CPL, obtained after training there in the early 90's at Meacham Field, FT. Worth, Texas. At that time it was one of the busiest controlled fields with around 1,200 movements a day on multiple runways whilst sharing it's airspace with the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex. Also, I have operate B757's out of MIA. I was based there for 6 weeks operating to South America. I also operated B767's in and out of Orlando Sanford and now operate B744's to MIA, MCO, JFK, EWR, BOS, LAS, LAX and SFO amongst other airports worldwide.
Suffice it to say that I find the standard of controlling in the US as professional and slick as I do here in the UK. There are a few differences but I wouldn't like to see either transposed on the other. Each works for the environment that it is in. Yes, to us Brits trained and brought up over here it can seem a bit overwhelming, at first, when operating into a busy US airport. Some of the controllers do need to remember that they may be dealing with someone whose first language may not be english or may be new to US ops. There are some US accents that are difficult to understand as there are some British ones. Occasionally everything feels a bit rushed when dealing with a very busy controller who is firing off instructions without a break. That I would put down to poor management by allowing the system to so overload one individual.
There are some things that I do like about operating into busy US airports and that is the way they allow their radar controllers to give advice on the location of weather in their area that they are vectoring people around. Also, I have nothing against the "cleared to land" instruction as I am fully aware that I am still responsible for accepting it provided I am happy that I will be responsible for going around if I'm not.
I certainly don't like the 'nanny state' attitude we sometimes get over here in the UK with regards to ILS approaches. Whilst I understand the requirements about not descending below initial approach height and below the glide path when at the final approach fix, I find it frustrating when cleared for the LOC, establishing whilst in a CDA and then being unable to get a word in for long enough to put me above the glideslope because I'm not allowed to be 'cleared for the ILS' in one single instruction.
There is a certain comfort in the standardisation of UK ATC RT. However, when in the US, I find that I am able to adapt to their methods. I know that they understand more non-standard RT but I certainly wouldn't say that they are safer for it. Far too many times I have heard controllers have to repeat themselves over in the US than over here. It may be slick but if it has to be repeated al the time then it defeats the purpose. One thing is for sure though, if I don't fully understand the controller I ask him or her to repeat it until I do. No big deal.
We are not allowed to do LAHSO approaches and so far I've never been offered one. If I was I'd just refuse it. Also, if I felt I was being vectored too tight I'd just ask for a few extra miles. The US controllers might give a sigh or whatever but we're the ones that have the last word. Better still, if you're arriving at a busy airport where you know you get vectors that are a bit tight, tell them early on what your intentions are and they will be most accommodating.
So what if some American pilots use non-standard RT over here. I have yet to have a problem understanding them even if some of the colloquialisms make you cringe. Have you heard some of the tug drivers trying to get across the active runway at LHR? Also, the differences in conditional clearances between the two systems are not that difficult to get your head around.
The angry responses by the few antagonists on here which condemn either system with such broad brushstrokes are silly and those who respond to them are just as bad for acknowledging them in the first place. I thoroughly enjoy the busy bits at either end of a long or short flight. Aware of the differences in both systems, I adapt as necessary. Far more worthy of blood pressure raising is the farce that we have to go through once on the ground in US when entering or departing as crew and dealing with INS and TSA
I'd like once again to ask that unless you have a question about these kind of operations we don't get those not familiar with jet ops into major, busy airports. Grand Canyon is indeed a sleepy backwater, at least when I last flew into there. Also, prop a/c handle very differently than swept wing jets when on approach. So, can we leave the hate filled rabid swats at each system in general and concentrate on the way we deal with what we're lumbered with.
I feel that I'm qualified to take part as I have experience of both systems, as well as others all over the world. I have an FAA CPL, obtained after training there in the early 90's at Meacham Field, FT. Worth, Texas. At that time it was one of the busiest controlled fields with around 1,200 movements a day on multiple runways whilst sharing it's airspace with the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex. Also, I have operate B757's out of MIA. I was based there for 6 weeks operating to South America. I also operated B767's in and out of Orlando Sanford and now operate B744's to MIA, MCO, JFK, EWR, BOS, LAS, LAX and SFO amongst other airports worldwide.
Suffice it to say that I find the standard of controlling in the US as professional and slick as I do here in the UK. There are a few differences but I wouldn't like to see either transposed on the other. Each works for the environment that it is in. Yes, to us Brits trained and brought up over here it can seem a bit overwhelming, at first, when operating into a busy US airport. Some of the controllers do need to remember that they may be dealing with someone whose first language may not be english or may be new to US ops. There are some US accents that are difficult to understand as there are some British ones. Occasionally everything feels a bit rushed when dealing with a very busy controller who is firing off instructions without a break. That I would put down to poor management by allowing the system to so overload one individual.
There are some things that I do like about operating into busy US airports and that is the way they allow their radar controllers to give advice on the location of weather in their area that they are vectoring people around. Also, I have nothing against the "cleared to land" instruction as I am fully aware that I am still responsible for accepting it provided I am happy that I will be responsible for going around if I'm not.
I certainly don't like the 'nanny state' attitude we sometimes get over here in the UK with regards to ILS approaches. Whilst I understand the requirements about not descending below initial approach height and below the glide path when at the final approach fix, I find it frustrating when cleared for the LOC, establishing whilst in a CDA and then being unable to get a word in for long enough to put me above the glideslope because I'm not allowed to be 'cleared for the ILS' in one single instruction.
There is a certain comfort in the standardisation of UK ATC RT. However, when in the US, I find that I am able to adapt to their methods. I know that they understand more non-standard RT but I certainly wouldn't say that they are safer for it. Far too many times I have heard controllers have to repeat themselves over in the US than over here. It may be slick but if it has to be repeated al the time then it defeats the purpose. One thing is for sure though, if I don't fully understand the controller I ask him or her to repeat it until I do. No big deal.
We are not allowed to do LAHSO approaches and so far I've never been offered one. If I was I'd just refuse it. Also, if I felt I was being vectored too tight I'd just ask for a few extra miles. The US controllers might give a sigh or whatever but we're the ones that have the last word. Better still, if you're arriving at a busy airport where you know you get vectors that are a bit tight, tell them early on what your intentions are and they will be most accommodating.
So what if some American pilots use non-standard RT over here. I have yet to have a problem understanding them even if some of the colloquialisms make you cringe. Have you heard some of the tug drivers trying to get across the active runway at LHR? Also, the differences in conditional clearances between the two systems are not that difficult to get your head around.
The angry responses by the few antagonists on here which condemn either system with such broad brushstrokes are silly and those who respond to them are just as bad for acknowledging them in the first place. I thoroughly enjoy the busy bits at either end of a long or short flight. Aware of the differences in both systems, I adapt as necessary. Far more worthy of blood pressure raising is the farce that we have to go through once on the ground in US when entering or departing as crew and dealing with INS and TSA
I'd like once again to ask that unless you have a question about these kind of operations we don't get those not familiar with jet ops into major, busy airports. Grand Canyon is indeed a sleepy backwater, at least when I last flew into there. Also, prop a/c handle very differently than swept wing jets when on approach. So, can we leave the hate filled rabid swats at each system in general and concentrate on the way we deal with what we're lumbered with.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you gentleman permit me to get back to the initial question raised by the originating post of this thread, I would like to ask a quick question about it, if I may.
So I'm sitting on a rwy (no matter where!!!!!, US/UK/South Pole/Tibette) that I know, provided by my most recent airport diagram/chart, is crossed by another rwy, I'm lined up, ready and waiting for my T/O clearance, and I also know, either by R/T or simple observation, that the other rwy is or could be in use, and I don't feel comfortable with that situation... what should I do after been given the clearance (and before "pushing thrust levers into EICAS") ?
Should I trust ATC blindly and go for it?
Should I wait for a second or two in order to give some time for a possible correction to be made by ATC?
Should I ask the controller to repeat the last transmission?
GD&L
So I'm sitting on a rwy (no matter where!!!!!, US/UK/South Pole/Tibette) that I know, provided by my most recent airport diagram/chart, is crossed by another rwy, I'm lined up, ready and waiting for my T/O clearance, and I also know, either by R/T or simple observation, that the other rwy is or could be in use, and I don't feel comfortable with that situation... what should I do after been given the clearance (and before "pushing thrust levers into EICAS") ?
Should I trust ATC blindly and go for it?
Should I wait for a second or two in order to give some time for a possible correction to be made by ATC?
Should I ask the controller to repeat the last transmission?
GD&L
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That night, one controller was in charge of the Aer Lingus jet and another was monitoring the US Airways plane.
As I said right at the start of this ...the system seems to have failed DANGEROUSLY...never mind bringing your A game or in europe we blah blah blah ,the SYSTEM failed. It would appear luck rather than judgement leaves us talking about an airprox rather than a disaster.
Generally speaking, the system didn't fail. Individuals failed. There are no absolute guarantees. No system is foolproof. You can implement what you believe to be the best available procedures and if a human fails, the system fails.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless the 2 controllers were neglecting their duty, then the System most definately failed, be that training or procedural. The Controllers were the last line of defence against a system that had holes in it, and perhaps it shows how good BOS controllers are that its not happened before.
Operating 2 different freqs for intersecting runways is not a good idea. The system created the circumstances for 2 people to make a near fatal mistake.
I havent been to KBOS for a few months so i cant remember if the 2 thresholds can be seen from each other. KORD always seem to clear you to take off beofre aircraft have passed the intersection, you'd only have to get distracted and say it too early. Some sort of runway incursion system as at LHR may be a plan for these crossings. Theres quite a few stories of low/med speed aborts due intersecting traffic in my company at several locations.
Operating 2 different freqs for intersecting runways is not a good idea. The system created the circumstances for 2 people to make a near fatal mistake.
I havent been to KBOS for a few months so i cant remember if the 2 thresholds can be seen from each other. KORD always seem to clear you to take off beofre aircraft have passed the intersection, you'd only have to get distracted and say it too early. Some sort of runway incursion system as at LHR may be a plan for these crossings. Theres quite a few stories of low/med speed aborts due intersecting traffic in my company at several locations.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wise man said that "a fail safe system fails when it fails to fail safe" so ultimately its "the systems fault" unless, possibly, Murphy has intruded to cause multiple discrete failures leading to the ultimate system failure.
Thankfully the FO took the correct action and all was well, he appears to be the hero in all this.
That does not read well but its late after a difficult day!
Thankfully the FO took the correct action and all was well, he appears to be the hero in all this.
That does not read well but its late after a difficult day!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Thanks" those with experience who have responded.
M.85....
I agree with everything in your post regarding the quality of ATC as I've experienced it in those regions you mentioned.
Jumbo....
Well written post and I agree that ATC shouldn't assume levels of experience or language understanding, and factor in possible fatigue or experience levels of the crew. You of course did the right thing when telling Tower "unable" in your situation. I hope nobody here thinks they can't.
Readbacks do become a luxury sometimes due to traffic saturation, but keep in mind that reading back assignments in those high-density situations don't necessarily ensure or enhance safety. There have been "hearback" incidents where a pilot has misunderstood instructions, read-back the misinterpretation, and missed by the controller (Btw, the onus is still on the pilot if they read back incorrectly and it's not caught by the controller). During high-saturation, it's easier for the controller to see your compliance on radar (he's definitely focused) while stacking or turning other aircraft so his/her picture comes together. When a controller begins to "break...issue..."break"..issue", that's a sign that he's seeing more than what he's hearing, and readbacks are only enhance safety if they have the time to actually listen to them and catch a mistake.
This rapid-fire situation is only acceptable (but works) if both pilots in the cockpit are maintaining a focused listening watch for their callsign, and use cockpit prodedures that confirm between the two pilots they've heard the same thing while attending to their other dutes. The high-level of safety is maintained more in this way...crew coordination and internal confirmation.. than by a readback where unless we specifically request it, subsequent silence from a controller is understood to be confirmation. While he expects to see you complying on his radar, he also expects a query if a crew is unsure of the instructions.
Admittedly, you're in a less-than-favorable situation if your F/O isn't up to speed or has trouble with the language. I can remember early in my career flying Barons and King Airs single-pilot in that bad-weather Notheast environment, and I've never experienced higher workload levels since, anywhere...and that's understanding the language. At your stage, you shouldn't be having to fly "virtual" single-pilot now in that high-saturation environment and babysit.
Happily, we have TCAS nowadays, where what they do is backed up by an electronic source of our own to see. I certainly remember the days without, IMC, and the rapid-fire instructions were nonstop. That was literally "blind trust", but I don't remember them ever mating any two aircraft over a city. Also, you're old saying is one of the best around.
Cytherea.....
The only person I recommended to bid away from flying to the U.S. was IDunno, and that was not because of his inexperience, but rather his repeated, declarative, self-proclaimed opinion that his life was in danger every time he did, and that it was a "crazy" situation. He claimed ATC asked him to do impossible things with his aircraft....I seriously doubt that....ATC at the locations he flies into is well-versed in differing types of aircraft and their capablilties. I asked for facts and statistics to back up his statements...but he has never offered anything but emotional oubursts. For that reason, I recommended he just stay away, obviously being too-stressed, bordering on paranoia.
I agree, learning and adapting to work within a system only comes through actually doing it. Nobody is born with the inherent experience, and there is always first times for everyone whether they have 500 hours or 15,000. New is new, and even the most experienced have moments of confusion. Keep in mind that this happens to controllers as well. Like it or not, flights from the UK will be assumed to be piloted by highly-proffesional crews who don't get ruffled, speak the language, don't need a lot of coddling, and know the U.S. system fairly well.
The earlier referred-to NY ATC-Concorde exchange posted highlights this expectation, where the probable assumption of the controller was that the BA Concorde pilot knew he was getting a straight-in approach while others were flying the entire arrival. A favor, that worked well with the controllers need to avoid fuel-state situations, noise considerations, etc. The dressing-down he gave the pilot was basically sending him back to school because he realized that pilot made an assumption of his own..that the controller was stupid and acting arbitrarily. The controller didn't want to assume the lowest common denominator for the Concorde, but as it turns out, he had to in that case after it was on the ground. Having to treat everyone as the "lowest common denominator" is efficency-lost, so they don't.
That's a major difference in the two systems, and an outgrowth from the amount of traffic that's handled and environment.
Is that holding UK crews to a higher standard?.....well, yes, but that's no different from holding American crews to a higher standard of being able to speak English with no colliloquisms while operating overseas. The usual complaint is about "standared" R/T phraseology infractions....not actually mis-handling aircraft, violations, or missed assignments that create a danger. It sounds sloppy to the ear in the UK, and will simply confuse controllers into silence in other regions.
Danny.....
A great post and points well-taken. If mentioning certain things that seem unnecessary or achaic in others systems was taken as "Painting it with a broad-brushstroke", I apologize. That was not my intent, for I was doing so merely to highlight that small differences do NOT indict an entire system if it's working to a statistical, proveable, high-level of safety and efficency. The UK/Euro system is safe to a high-level, but has different ways of achieving it, and in my opinion this has evolved as a result of traffic volume and routine weather considerations.
I responded to the thread was because of blatant scaremongering by a member who extrapolated this BOS incident into an ad hoc attack while foisting himself off as an authority. In our profession, declarative statements such as his will be challenged when the issue is safety. If this forum were "hangar-talking" among peers, that would be ok. But it's a public forum for anyone to read, and so questioning his premise in public in order to highlight the lack of support for his "dangerous-trying to kill me" claim seemed reasonable. "Put up, or shut up", as the saying goes. If I had indeed responded to his attack in kind, I would "put up" the evidence making the same claim. There IS a difference between defending against an attack and making making one. The incidents I referred to happening to me under the UK/Euro system were not in the vein of attack.
They were cited to point out the obvious (and what I thought everybody understood); that any highly-complex system can never be designed to be "failsafe" in every circumstance. The inability to do so is in part what helps define something as a "highly complex system" in the first place. Any system is subject to human factors/errors. Lapses occur, but just as in operating national power supply-grid systems or running an aircraft carrier to it's full capability, the ATC system(s) are highly complex, but efficient to the point that the exceptions prove the rule. The BOS incident is one such example, and it's oxymoronic to use this exception as "evidence" that it's the norm. If it were, incidents like this wouldn't make the newpapers, and the internal and external investigative gears already set in motion seeking answers and resolutions wouldn't even exist.
That's all, I'm done with this thread as well.
M.85....
I agree with everything in your post regarding the quality of ATC as I've experienced it in those regions you mentioned.
Jumbo....
Well written post and I agree that ATC shouldn't assume levels of experience or language understanding, and factor in possible fatigue or experience levels of the crew. You of course did the right thing when telling Tower "unable" in your situation. I hope nobody here thinks they can't.
Readbacks do become a luxury sometimes due to traffic saturation, but keep in mind that reading back assignments in those high-density situations don't necessarily ensure or enhance safety. There have been "hearback" incidents where a pilot has misunderstood instructions, read-back the misinterpretation, and missed by the controller (Btw, the onus is still on the pilot if they read back incorrectly and it's not caught by the controller). During high-saturation, it's easier for the controller to see your compliance on radar (he's definitely focused) while stacking or turning other aircraft so his/her picture comes together. When a controller begins to "break...issue..."break"..issue", that's a sign that he's seeing more than what he's hearing, and readbacks are only enhance safety if they have the time to actually listen to them and catch a mistake.
This rapid-fire situation is only acceptable (but works) if both pilots in the cockpit are maintaining a focused listening watch for their callsign, and use cockpit prodedures that confirm between the two pilots they've heard the same thing while attending to their other dutes. The high-level of safety is maintained more in this way...crew coordination and internal confirmation.. than by a readback where unless we specifically request it, subsequent silence from a controller is understood to be confirmation. While he expects to see you complying on his radar, he also expects a query if a crew is unsure of the instructions.
Admittedly, you're in a less-than-favorable situation if your F/O isn't up to speed or has trouble with the language. I can remember early in my career flying Barons and King Airs single-pilot in that bad-weather Notheast environment, and I've never experienced higher workload levels since, anywhere...and that's understanding the language. At your stage, you shouldn't be having to fly "virtual" single-pilot now in that high-saturation environment and babysit.
Happily, we have TCAS nowadays, where what they do is backed up by an electronic source of our own to see. I certainly remember the days without, IMC, and the rapid-fire instructions were nonstop. That was literally "blind trust", but I don't remember them ever mating any two aircraft over a city. Also, you're old saying is one of the best around.
Cytherea.....
The only person I recommended to bid away from flying to the U.S. was IDunno, and that was not because of his inexperience, but rather his repeated, declarative, self-proclaimed opinion that his life was in danger every time he did, and that it was a "crazy" situation. He claimed ATC asked him to do impossible things with his aircraft....I seriously doubt that....ATC at the locations he flies into is well-versed in differing types of aircraft and their capablilties. I asked for facts and statistics to back up his statements...but he has never offered anything but emotional oubursts. For that reason, I recommended he just stay away, obviously being too-stressed, bordering on paranoia.
I agree, learning and adapting to work within a system only comes through actually doing it. Nobody is born with the inherent experience, and there is always first times for everyone whether they have 500 hours or 15,000. New is new, and even the most experienced have moments of confusion. Keep in mind that this happens to controllers as well. Like it or not, flights from the UK will be assumed to be piloted by highly-proffesional crews who don't get ruffled, speak the language, don't need a lot of coddling, and know the U.S. system fairly well.
The earlier referred-to NY ATC-Concorde exchange posted highlights this expectation, where the probable assumption of the controller was that the BA Concorde pilot knew he was getting a straight-in approach while others were flying the entire arrival. A favor, that worked well with the controllers need to avoid fuel-state situations, noise considerations, etc. The dressing-down he gave the pilot was basically sending him back to school because he realized that pilot made an assumption of his own..that the controller was stupid and acting arbitrarily. The controller didn't want to assume the lowest common denominator for the Concorde, but as it turns out, he had to in that case after it was on the ground. Having to treat everyone as the "lowest common denominator" is efficency-lost, so they don't.
That's a major difference in the two systems, and an outgrowth from the amount of traffic that's handled and environment.
Is that holding UK crews to a higher standard?.....well, yes, but that's no different from holding American crews to a higher standard of being able to speak English with no colliloquisms while operating overseas. The usual complaint is about "standared" R/T phraseology infractions....not actually mis-handling aircraft, violations, or missed assignments that create a danger. It sounds sloppy to the ear in the UK, and will simply confuse controllers into silence in other regions.
Danny.....
A great post and points well-taken. If mentioning certain things that seem unnecessary or achaic in others systems was taken as "Painting it with a broad-brushstroke", I apologize. That was not my intent, for I was doing so merely to highlight that small differences do NOT indict an entire system if it's working to a statistical, proveable, high-level of safety and efficency. The UK/Euro system is safe to a high-level, but has different ways of achieving it, and in my opinion this has evolved as a result of traffic volume and routine weather considerations.
I responded to the thread was because of blatant scaremongering by a member who extrapolated this BOS incident into an ad hoc attack while foisting himself off as an authority. In our profession, declarative statements such as his will be challenged when the issue is safety. If this forum were "hangar-talking" among peers, that would be ok. But it's a public forum for anyone to read, and so questioning his premise in public in order to highlight the lack of support for his "dangerous-trying to kill me" claim seemed reasonable. "Put up, or shut up", as the saying goes. If I had indeed responded to his attack in kind, I would "put up" the evidence making the same claim. There IS a difference between defending against an attack and making making one. The incidents I referred to happening to me under the UK/Euro system were not in the vein of attack.
They were cited to point out the obvious (and what I thought everybody understood); that any highly-complex system can never be designed to be "failsafe" in every circumstance. The inability to do so is in part what helps define something as a "highly complex system" in the first place. Any system is subject to human factors/errors. Lapses occur, but just as in operating national power supply-grid systems or running an aircraft carrier to it's full capability, the ATC system(s) are highly complex, but efficient to the point that the exceptions prove the rule. The BOS incident is one such example, and it's oxymoronic to use this exception as "evidence" that it's the norm. If it were, incidents like this wouldn't make the newpapers, and the internal and external investigative gears already set in motion seeking answers and resolutions wouldn't even exist.
That's all, I'm done with this thread as well.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny,
Keep in mind that it's illegal for us to do 'passive' LAHSO approaches as well. i.e. Someone holding short for us. It's not always easy to pick up on.
We are not allowed to do LAHSO approaches and so far I've never been offered one.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Staines
Age: 42
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast,
When I said I am not a pilot, that is correct, I am not fully qualified pilot, I am half way towards my PPL. There is no requirement to be a fully qualified commercial pilot to post here. (if there was, why would there be sections for cabin crew and private flyers?) I simply posted points based on my experience (no, it's not as much as yours clearly), the facts presented on this board and things learnt from my honours degree in engineering with aeronautics.
I find it amusing that you challenge my credibility simply because you cannot argue with the points I made. To argue that the aeroplane should be pushed to it's limits constantly would suggest that you are not the great pilot you suggest.
To those of you commenting on my posts on the evacuation thread:
The points I made were in regard to what I was trained to do by the SEP training department at the airline I work for. The whole thread had nothing to do with my attitude, only the way we are trained at this airline.
When I said I am not a pilot, that is correct, I am not fully qualified pilot, I am half way towards my PPL. There is no requirement to be a fully qualified commercial pilot to post here. (if there was, why would there be sections for cabin crew and private flyers?) I simply posted points based on my experience (no, it's not as much as yours clearly), the facts presented on this board and things learnt from my honours degree in engineering with aeronautics.
I find it amusing that you challenge my credibility simply because you cannot argue with the points I made. To argue that the aeroplane should be pushed to it's limits constantly would suggest that you are not the great pilot you suggest.
To those of you commenting on my posts on the evacuation thread:
The points I made were in regard to what I was trained to do by the SEP training department at the airline I work for. The whole thread had nothing to do with my attitude, only the way we are trained at this airline.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Planet Zog
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMF,
If I had a hot meal for the number of times that I've heard US pilots ask UK, or even any European ATC to phonetically spell out the name of a waypoint they've been cleared to, I wouldn't go hungry.
Moreover, the number of times I've heard US pilots refuse a direct clearance because a certain waypoint "isn't on our flight plan".....
A very basic assumption in aviation is that some sort of en-route chart is to hand in the cockpit as required by regulations. Could it be the case that certain operators / crews / individuals are in a mindset that unless a waypoint is actually on a CRT or LCD screen in front of them that it doesn't exist?
Not withstanding that Europe is a continent of over 20 states that have their own rules and regulations I have yet to hear such refusals from anyone else other than a US based crew. No doubt, having spent the night crossing the Atlantic before arriving in Europe, crew alertness levels are a factor.
Regarding "Readback is a luxury"...... I couldn't be so much more at odds with you.
It is a fundamental keystone that confirms what was said (transmitted) was actually (received) heard. Several noise factors are at work in ATC communications - the relatively poor quality of RT comms (As opposed to the full human aural range); background noise from the transmission side; background noise in the reception area; partial reception due to other traffic cutting in; expectations,.......... the list goes on. A clearance is not validated unless the originator has it accurately read back to him/her. Only then is there any level of confidence in the original message having been received as intended.
The massive increase in Air traffic over the last 25 years should not be under estimated. I've gone from a norm of perhaps being the only, or one of a few aircraft on a given frequency to a situation where it is often difficult to get a call in when needed. There has been no significant improvement in the way that we communicate with ATC. In fact the opposite has occured with increased RT traffic and frequency changes.
Rather than blame cultures or ethnics as being the source of the problem, the real issue has been the lack of investment and development by the relevent authorities. Consider the fact that the passengers have had access to crystal clear Satcom telephone calls midatlantic for the last ten years whilst the crew up front are still doing battle on shared HF frequencies (Short Wave Radio for the uninitiated) to get clearances and give position reports. This crazy situation exists only because there is money to be made from giving the phone to the passenger, but no financial gain if you give it to the pilots.
The enemy is not those that we meet or talk to day by day, but those above us that believe we don't deserve better than what we've got.
If I had a hot meal for the number of times that I've heard US pilots ask UK, or even any European ATC to phonetically spell out the name of a waypoint they've been cleared to, I wouldn't go hungry.
Moreover, the number of times I've heard US pilots refuse a direct clearance because a certain waypoint "isn't on our flight plan".....
A very basic assumption in aviation is that some sort of en-route chart is to hand in the cockpit as required by regulations. Could it be the case that certain operators / crews / individuals are in a mindset that unless a waypoint is actually on a CRT or LCD screen in front of them that it doesn't exist?
Not withstanding that Europe is a continent of over 20 states that have their own rules and regulations I have yet to hear such refusals from anyone else other than a US based crew. No doubt, having spent the night crossing the Atlantic before arriving in Europe, crew alertness levels are a factor.
Regarding "Readback is a luxury"...... I couldn't be so much more at odds with you.
It is a fundamental keystone that confirms what was said (transmitted) was actually (received) heard. Several noise factors are at work in ATC communications - the relatively poor quality of RT comms (As opposed to the full human aural range); background noise from the transmission side; background noise in the reception area; partial reception due to other traffic cutting in; expectations,.......... the list goes on. A clearance is not validated unless the originator has it accurately read back to him/her. Only then is there any level of confidence in the original message having been received as intended.
The massive increase in Air traffic over the last 25 years should not be under estimated. I've gone from a norm of perhaps being the only, or one of a few aircraft on a given frequency to a situation where it is often difficult to get a call in when needed. There has been no significant improvement in the way that we communicate with ATC. In fact the opposite has occured with increased RT traffic and frequency changes.
Rather than blame cultures or ethnics as being the source of the problem, the real issue has been the lack of investment and development by the relevent authorities. Consider the fact that the passengers have had access to crystal clear Satcom telephone calls midatlantic for the last ten years whilst the crew up front are still doing battle on shared HF frequencies (Short Wave Radio for the uninitiated) to get clearances and give position reports. This crazy situation exists only because there is money to be made from giving the phone to the passenger, but no financial gain if you give it to the pilots.
The enemy is not those that we meet or talk to day by day, but those above us that believe we don't deserve better than what we've got.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geardown, your alternatives 2 and 3 would seem to have produced no difference in what transpired. There is no indication from the press articles or the preliminary NTSB report that the control tower gave any warning to either plane beforehand.
From the initial Boston Globe story:
Hotel Mode: Neither plane could see the other as it began its takeoff roll. Each flight crew's view of the other runway was initially blocked by terminals and, on this evening, by aircraft parked on taxiways.
For what its worth, the control tower at Boston won an FAA safety award in 2003 for having only three "incidents" on the airport's runways and taxiways during the year. No definition of what constitutes an "incident" given, but it apparently might include, for example, an accident between a ramp vehicle and an airplane.
From the initial Boston Globe story:
He [an unnamed controller] said that the crew in the tower was working two employees short and that air traffic controllers in charge of landings and takeoffs also had to guide and monitor aircraft delayed by bad weather, which were parked between active runways to free up gate space.
''Yes, there was an error," said the controller. ''But they were being asked to do things that maybe they shouldn't have been asked to do by shuffling aircraft between the runways."
''Yes, there was an error," said the controller. ''But they were being asked to do things that maybe they shouldn't have been asked to do by shuffling aircraft between the runways."
For what its worth, the control tower at Boston won an FAA safety award in 2003 for having only three "incidents" on the airport's runways and taxiways during the year. No definition of what constitutes an "incident" given, but it apparently might include, for example, an accident between a ramp vehicle and an airplane.
ChewyTheWookie
"I am not fully qualified pilot"
As such not qualified to make obsevations on this thread.
Since the start of this thread you have varied from a non pilot to a student pilot to a pilot.
Don't buy it for a second.
"I am not fully qualified pilot"
As such not qualified to make obsevations on this thread.
Since the start of this thread you have varied from a non pilot to a student pilot to a pilot.
Don't buy it for a second.
This thread was opened on a serious issue, that is the original incident, it was drifted by the US/EU bashers with nothing constructive to say, I can see that it was just about impossible to moderate back to the original issue. I guess that we will have to wait for the official report to decide...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Staines
Age: 42
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast,
This thread is not for flight crew only. PPRUNE is for anyone who takes and interest in flying.
You don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that I am not a pilot in the sense that you are (ie: I am not a commercial pilot), but I am a pilot in as much as I am taking lessons and have some knowledge of aviation. I have made it clear from my first post what I am and have not tried to claim anything else.
I don't care if you "buy" what I say for one second. Whether I am a 14 year old plane spotter or a training captain, I am entitled to post based on what I know. Again, you have not given an argument against what I actually posted, you have simply attacked me for not being a commercial pilot. Is this because what I said was true or do you simply not like communicating with people who have fewer hours than you? Maybe you should think back and remember that you were young once and were, like me, enthusiastic about aviation and working hard to learn to fly. Everyone has to start at the bottom.
Please can we now let this rubbish drop and get back to the original debate about safety.
This thread is not for flight crew only. PPRUNE is for anyone who takes and interest in flying.
You don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that I am not a pilot in the sense that you are (ie: I am not a commercial pilot), but I am a pilot in as much as I am taking lessons and have some knowledge of aviation. I have made it clear from my first post what I am and have not tried to claim anything else.
I don't care if you "buy" what I say for one second. Whether I am a 14 year old plane spotter or a training captain, I am entitled to post based on what I know. Again, you have not given an argument against what I actually posted, you have simply attacked me for not being a commercial pilot. Is this because what I said was true or do you simply not like communicating with people who have fewer hours than you? Maybe you should think back and remember that you were young once and were, like me, enthusiastic about aviation and working hard to learn to fly. Everyone has to start at the bottom.
Please can we now let this rubbish drop and get back to the original debate about safety.