Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

BA's worrying RT trend!

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

BA's worrying RT trend!

Old 26th Jun 2001, 14:11
  #41 (permalink)  
Invalid Delete
Posts: n/a

"XYZ123 Cleared Take Off", Correct response = "XYZ123 Cleared Take Off" or "Cleared Take Off XYZ123" - NOT "XYZ123 Rolling"
"XYZ123 Call Rolling", Correct response = "XYZ123 Rolling".
"XYZ123 Cleared Immediate Take Off", Correct response = "XYZ123 Cleared Immediate Take Off".

"XYZ123 Descend Altitude 4,000 feet", Correct response = "XYZ123 Descend Altitude 4,000 feet"
"QNH 1019", Correct ressponse = "QNH1019".

It's such a simple rule that it's stupid. ATC SAY IT....WE REPEAT IT !!!!!

What is the bloody problem with being professional and using the correct phraseology?
(Which BTW, is a MANDATORY requirement, NOT subject to our own opinions of what is best.)
It isn't that hard....come on guys lets do the job properly....

Additionally we are rquired to avoid the unnecessary words "TO" and "FOR" as these can be mis interpreted as "TWO" and "FOUR". i.e "XYZ123 Climb to six zero" - but then we all know this already, right guys ?

Incidently wheelybin, this is why you get the response you do from "almost everyone", as this is the correct response ! Except of course they should include the call sign (or was that the point that you were making?)

What really clogs up the airwaves is "Morning delivery, it's the XYZ Errrmmmm.....123, Stand 25, ATIS information xray, requesting the clearance please for Errrrmmmm....Manchester if available.....etc....".
Instead of "XYZ123, Stand 25, Information x-ray, request clearance."

Anyway, there aren't many perfect pilots out there, with perfect RT skills......yup, there's only a few of us.

Invalid Delete Say "Late Pax : Off with their Heads !!!"
"....OK, well start with their bags then..."
Old 26th Jun 2001, 15:53
  #42 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a


Couldnt agree more - the RT regs are there in black & white, its not for pilots or ATC to go making their own up.

[This message has been edited by Julian (edited 26 June 2001).]
Old 26th Jun 2001, 16:47
  #43 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

Just to put yet another slant on this thread here is a copy of an article printed in "The Log" in February/March 2000.

Airbubba, not trying to be prejudiced here but I think the Americans could learn a bit off us Europeans over this issue!

Readbacks in the USA

Most aircrew are probably under the impression that having receiveda clearance from a controller, our readback to them is an opportunity for the controllers to ascertain whether or not we - the aircraft crew - heard the clearance correctly, and then issue a correction if necessary.

It has been reported in the USA that a number of pilots have been hit with sanctions after allegedly failing to adhere to clearances. They appealed to the NTSB, saying that they had read back and complied with the clearance they thought they had heard, with no correction to their erroneous readback from the controller. The NTSB agreed with their reasoning, concluding that "...an air traffic controller's failure to identify and correct a pilot's erroneous readback contributes to the pilot's error and warrants a mitigation of the sanction for the pilot's regulation violation". In response to these NTSB appeal decisions, the FAA had issued an 'interpretive rule', citing the provisions of FAR 91.123 (which essentially says 'you shall comply with an ATC clearance'). The FAA's interpretation of the situation is that the NTSB's line of reasoning "diverges from the FAA's long-standing construction of FAA regulations. These regulations require pilots to comply with air traffic control clearances and instructions. Contrary to the NTSB's reasoning, pilots do not meet this regulatory imperative by offering a full and complete readback or by taking other action that would tend to expose their error and allow for it to be corrected". While the FAA acknowledges that readbacks can be beneficial to safety when radio traffic is light, the FAA asserts that they can be detrimental during periods of concentrated communications. >>Ed - I would have thought it was even more important to use readback when it's busy!!<<

The FAA concludes that: "...the simple act of giving a readback does not shift full responsibility to air traffic control and cannot insulate pilots from their primary responsibility under FAR 91.123 to listen attentively, to hear accurately, and to construe reasonably in the first instance". In cynical summary, as far as the FAA is concerned, when things are busy, then a readback is more or less a waste of breath.

In view of the FAA's interpretation of the situation, BALPA suggests to members the importance of the following advice especially, but not exclusively, when flying in USA airspace:

* Absolutely no distractions or non-operational communication be allowed during descent and approach.

* Maximise monitoring and listening capability by maximum use of the autopilot during approaches into busy US destinations.

*In conclusion, if you're not 100% sure what the clearance was, demand clarification from ATC and don't assume that ATC will correct and erroneous readback!

End of BALPA article.

I first posted this as a thread entitled "Worrying FAA ruling - readback of ATC clearances".

I do not know whether the situation in the USA has changed and it would also be interesting to know whether their incidence of "misinterpretation of clearances" is significantly different to the UK and Europe.

Finally, I am firmly of the view that we should be using the procedures as they are defined and that we are on a slippery slope when we start to deviate from same.


[This message has been edited by fireflybob (edited 26 June 2001).]
Old 26th Jun 2001, 20:03
  #44 (permalink)  
cheerful chippy
Posts: n/a

Sorry Invalid, your R/T terminology is incorrect. The correct clearance should be 'descend TO altitude 6000 ft'. If you are going to get on your high horse at least get it right!
Old 26th Jun 2001, 22:30
  #45 (permalink)  
Winston Smith
Posts: n/a

And another question about lessons supposedly learned from the Tenerife accident:

One of the first things we were told in class, as students, by the controllers was that the word "take-off" is to be exclusively used in the phrase "cleared for take-off" so as to minimize the risk of such a thing ever occuring again. In any other case the word "departure" had to be employed (most importantly: "ready for departure"), and we were assured that this rule is being strictly adhered to all over the globe.

While my subsequent flying experience showed me this terminology to be indeed diligently observed in Europe, I was surprised - while doing some hours in southern Africa - to hear a lot of pilots actually say "ready for take-off"!

Isn't this phraseology mandatory everywhere?
Old 26th Jun 2001, 23:30
  #46 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

To clarify,I never claimed "rolling" was a proper substitute for the "cleared for takeoff" call.If there is any delay between receiving(and the read back of)takeoff clearance and spool-up(ie.receiving that clearance whilst still taxiing),I believe the "rolling" call is a genuinely legitimate second call.It is also IMHO acceptable as a primary read-back if cleared for an immediate,as it underlines your acknowledgment of the fact that TOWER wants you to go NOW.
Of course there are short-cuts in aviation speak,and as the skies get busier,the shortcuts will become even more common.Shortcuts dont make the skies any less safer...You need only work out of ORD to know that.But this approach only works where both the pilot and controller are equally familiar with all the nuances of the English language.It is dangerous if this pre-requisite is not there.
Literal word-for-word pedantic read-backs are unnecessary and in very busy TMA's are quite frankly not a help.BA,which flies to the US more than any other UK airline,perhaps has learnt this...and maybe this is why it was a BA crew that was involved in this instance.
Re the Tenerife..that accident was caused by the KLM Captain and the KLM Captain alone.KLM tried to point the finger at the Spanish and even the Pan Am crew,but the tapes put paid to that.
Old 27th Jun 2001, 00:01
  #47 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

Quote (last year) from the policy holder for RTF Phraseology for the UK.

“The UK has many differences with ICAO phraseology (actually section X of Doc 4444) and the UK has filed a general difference. We believe that the differences we have in the UK, which have been made as a result of experience over many years, have a safety benefit. However, we have no power over other states to change to our system.”

CAA (SRG) were looking at options to improve things as well.....
Old 27th Jun 2001, 01:32
  #48 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

Caulfield, you say:-

>>Re the Tenerife..that accident was caused by the KLM Captain and the KLM Captain alone.KLM tried to point the finger at the Spanish and even the Pan Am crew,but the tapes put paid to that.<<

Whilst somewhat off the theme of this thread I feel your comments are a gross oversimplification as to the cause of the TFS accident. Most, if not all, accidents are a combination of factors and/or events.

The basic truth though is that correct RT procedures are followed this goes a long way to prevent the beginning of any "error chains"

Old 27th Jun 2001, 03:16
  #49 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

Noticed something interesting, that may be part of the reason for the "rolling" call, fire up your copy of Microsoft Flight sim(I'm using FS98, but assume later versions are the same). Start up one of the "adventures" "your co-pilot will handle all radio communications", following take-off clearance from ATC, the resonse from your helpful co-pilot is eg "Learjet 45LJ is rolling"

Any chance thats whats happening is the encroachment of the microsoft generation?

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.