BA's worrying RT trend!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree that "rolling" shouldn't be used in place of "cleared for takeoff", there is room for confusion in this practice and should be used.
While we're talking about proper RT and the runway, where do pilots get "on the hold" in place of taxi into position and hold"? This is very irritating, when planes and pilots get close to the runway environment, proper RT needs to be used or we will see another runway disaster.
While we're talking about proper RT and the runway, where do pilots get "on the hold" in place of taxi into position and hold"? This is very irritating, when planes and pilots get close to the runway environment, proper RT needs to be used or we will see another runway disaster.
Guest
Posts: n/a
was'nt it the tennerrife disaster which mandated use of "clearence" only in connection with a RWY?
ie. t/o, landing, crossing etc....
So an:
"xxx, approved taxi RWY 22R"
will NEVER be missunderstood by the chap on the zebra on 22R waiting for a "
CLEARED bla bla....
Correct me if I'm wrong.
DT
ie. t/o, landing, crossing etc....
So an:
"xxx, approved taxi RWY 22R"
will NEVER be missunderstood by the chap on the zebra on 22R waiting for a "
CLEARED bla bla....
Correct me if I'm wrong.
DT
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have to say that on the whole R/T procedures in BA are very good. I have never had to mention anything to a colleague and hope my own practice is "up to scratch". My own personal gripe is "Coming down" in response to a new squawk being given. Heard it only this morning from VS over 10W.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Using correct RT is not difficult and goes just another step to being professional.
Are you a professional pilot or not? If the answer is YES then why do you not use the correct RT?
Incorrect RT has been the cause of accidents and will be again. Lets reduce the risk.
Are you a professional pilot or not? If the answer is YES then why do you not use the correct RT?
Incorrect RT has been the cause of accidents and will be again. Lets reduce the risk.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Right, firstly I'm not suggesting that a call of rolling should be eliminated altogether because at times it is a good thing. All I'm saying, for those of you who have trouble reading is that it should not replace the clearance read back in full of take off. OK flanker?
Secondly, CRP5, I realise that it may have been a little unfair to single out BA but I have only heard them do it and very often as it happens. I don't drink, pal, so there's your theory up the wall.
Ah, Kippa. No mate, two chips; on each shoulder as it happens, making a total of four on each. Last March as it happens. Just in time to enjoy an effective doubling of my salary AND a hefty increase in my allowances at a captain's rate. All for doing the same job I was happy doing anyway. All ahead of those poor unfortunate FO's (most of whom I probably do sympathise with, incidentally. Although by no means all, Kippa). Could this oversensitivity on your part not have something to do with the chip on your shoulder about us going in as DE captains??? I'm laughing, mate, all the way to the bank.
Anyway, as I said, just an opinion. I think you'll find that most of the ATC'ers agree with me, but hey, what do they know, right?
See ya in Jubilee, Kip.
------------------
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!
[This message has been edited by Secret Squirrel (edited 24 June 2001).]
Secondly, CRP5, I realise that it may have been a little unfair to single out BA but I have only heard them do it and very often as it happens. I don't drink, pal, so there's your theory up the wall.
Ah, Kippa. No mate, two chips; on each shoulder as it happens, making a total of four on each. Last March as it happens. Just in time to enjoy an effective doubling of my salary AND a hefty increase in my allowances at a captain's rate. All for doing the same job I was happy doing anyway. All ahead of those poor unfortunate FO's (most of whom I probably do sympathise with, incidentally. Although by no means all, Kippa). Could this oversensitivity on your part not have something to do with the chip on your shoulder about us going in as DE captains??? I'm laughing, mate, all the way to the bank.
Anyway, as I said, just an opinion. I think you'll find that most of the ATC'ers agree with me, but hey, what do they know, right?
See ya in Jubilee, Kip.
------------------
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!
[This message has been edited by Secret Squirrel (edited 24 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Okay guys, what about the other problem of changing frequency and immediately transmitting on the new frequency?
I was always taught to listen out for a few seconds before transmitting in case you interjected before someone had readback an instruction from ATC. It seems to happen all too frequently, and unfortunately the worst offenders are BA crews (not picking on you cos I wish I was one, with those allowances!).
I'm sure I'm not the only person wound up by this other bad practice.
I was always taught to listen out for a few seconds before transmitting in case you interjected before someone had readback an instruction from ATC. It seems to happen all too frequently, and unfortunately the worst offenders are BA crews (not picking on you cos I wish I was one, with those allowances!).
I'm sure I'm not the only person wound up by this other bad practice.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As an ATCO at a reasonably busy airport, I like to hear "rolling" when I've cleared someone for an immediate take off, granted, this should be preceded by "cleared for take off", but it's nice to know that you boys and girls are on the ball and know that the gap is tight and we need you to react immediately. The fact that you are still stationary is irrelevant, you're just putting on the power (aren't you!!!)
Im a great believer in the use of standard phraseology, it's there for a reason. What really annoys me is crews not reading back instructions that require a mandatory readback, the main one being the QNH, the amount of RT time wasted on getting a readback of a simple instruction which requires a MANDATORY readback is becoming ridivulous, this is from UK and foreign crews alike and unfortunately it seems to be becoming more common.
Incorrect altimeter settings are responsible for a great deal of incidents, we've all seen the level bust posters and read the airprox reports, a correct readback would greatly reduce these incidents.
Perhaps pilots should spend some time in a tower or centre and see what we deal with and just how difficult our job can be made by lack of reaback!
You are all welcome to visit the airport towers and the centres, maybe you should!!
Right that's me off my soapbox
Safe and happy flying to you all
Im a great believer in the use of standard phraseology, it's there for a reason. What really annoys me is crews not reading back instructions that require a mandatory readback, the main one being the QNH, the amount of RT time wasted on getting a readback of a simple instruction which requires a MANDATORY readback is becoming ridivulous, this is from UK and foreign crews alike and unfortunately it seems to be becoming more common.
Incorrect altimeter settings are responsible for a great deal of incidents, we've all seen the level bust posters and read the airprox reports, a correct readback would greatly reduce these incidents.
Perhaps pilots should spend some time in a tower or centre and see what we deal with and just how difficult our job can be made by lack of reaback!
You are all welcome to visit the airport towers and the centres, maybe you should!!
Right that's me off my soapbox
Safe and happy flying to you all
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whilst we are on the subject,my personal bug-bear,working at a unit surrounded by high ground, is when you instruct a pilot to "Descend to altitude x,000 feet" and almost every time the response is "Descend x,000 feet".
Well only if you want to land sooner than expected!!
Well only if you want to land sooner than expected!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Caulfield--
While it might be fine to assume that ATC in the UK will understand 'Rolling', won't there be a risk that other pilots on frequency won't understand non-standard terminology if English isn't their first language? I'm sure that (Unless you're at AMS, where 'Rolling' might be misconstrued as an activity that keeps your hands off the controls in the first place. Man.)
R
While it might be fine to assume that ATC in the UK will understand 'Rolling', won't there be a risk that other pilots on frequency won't understand non-standard terminology if English isn't their first language? I'm sure that (Unless you're at AMS, where 'Rolling' might be misconstrued as an activity that keeps your hands off the controls in the first place. Man.)
R
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I guess we don't worry endlessly about R/T procedures over here in America, in fact most of us have never heard of the term. We usually assume that if we say it loud enough and long enough the other guy will get the point.
We worry more about pay and time off and have the results to show for it...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wheelybin, you are entirely correct in that the reply should be "descend to altitude 5000'". However, you are NEVER told to descend by a set amount (for instance, in the hold at 9000', you are never told "descend 1000'" to mean "descend to altitude 8000'" Therefore, there can never be any real confusion here? I always use the word feet, to readback that I understand its an altitude and not a FL.
The only real danger is if the clearance is 'descend two four zero zero (2400) feet' can be misinterpreted as descend to 400' (as claimed the lives of a cargo 747 a while ago.
The only real danger is if the clearance is 'descend two four zero zero (2400) feet' can be misinterpreted as descend to 400' (as claimed the lives of a cargo 747 a while ago.
Guest
Posts: n/a
For the guy who said he believed rolling was an RAF term; It is, but means something entirely different; it means you are bashing the circuit & this time around you are landing & taking off again without stopping. I'm pretty sure thats not what the crews here mean.
I don't think there is any harm in the call as long as the correct readback has been given back & it's just tagged quickly onto the end to show you are aware of the one about to land on top of you.
I don't think there is any harm in the call as long as the correct readback has been given back & it's just tagged quickly onto the end to show you are aware of the one about to land on top of you.
Guest
Posts: n/a
BmPilot21, that's why you should never get (or indeed action!) a clearance 'descend two four zero zero (2400) feet' - it must ALWAYS include the words "descend to altitude" to avoid such fatal confusion. Likewise, the word "to" should never be included in clearance to a FL.
Another bug-bear - too many lazy people who don't confirm their SID details when first talking to APP/DEP e.g. "ABC123, passing 1000 feet, Bovingdon 9Z, cleared 6000 feet."
There was an AIC (140/1999, Pink 205) on the subject, dunno if it has been superceded. Think that some European ATC do things as per IACO (UK has filed an exemption?), i.e. no easy differentation between "to altitude" or "to FL" etc!
Another bug-bear - too many lazy people who don't confirm their SID details when first talking to APP/DEP e.g. "ABC123, passing 1000 feet, Bovingdon 9Z, cleared 6000 feet."
There was an AIC (140/1999, Pink 205) on the subject, dunno if it has been superceded. Think that some European ATC do things as per IACO (UK has filed an exemption?), i.e. no easy differentation between "to altitude" or "to FL" etc!
Guest
Posts: n/a
If we are going to be picky about standard R/T, then what about all the hello's and giddays which you hear !! If you added them all up I'm sure that the time spent saying these would be quite a few minutes every hour.
Whether it is a gidday / hello or a 'rolling' one should still include the readback of the clearance given.
Whether it is a gidday / hello or a 'rolling' one should still include the readback of the clearance given.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm afraid I would single BA as one of the worse UK airlines for RT disipline. I forget the amount of times myself or the FO I have been with have thought how gash they sound.
ie; changing frequency by giving no read back other than "By", frequencies read back as "one, nineteen, sixty five".etc, etc.
It may not sound much, but its as easy to do it the correct way as the wrong way, and sloppiness is endemic. If this is what we hear what else may be going on?
ie; changing frequency by giving no read back other than "By", frequencies read back as "one, nineteen, sixty five".etc, etc.
It may not sound much, but its as easy to do it the correct way as the wrong way, and sloppiness is endemic. If this is what we hear what else may be going on?