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 23rd Jun 2001, 04:03
  #1 (permalink)  
Secret Squirrel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Red face BA's worrying RT trend!

My nature is not to be pedantic but I generally like to do things properly and especially in aviation. I don't so much bend the rules as flex them for the purposes of practicality and even then only in certain areas where I feel that ambiguity will not compromise safety.

One such area I consider to be paramount is ATC clearances, and in light of the Tenerife crash in 1977 I would have thought that most people would have cottoned on to it's importance.

On many ocasions now I've been sitting at the hold at LGW whilst a BA has lined up. On receiving clearance to take off the pilot reads back "Rolling, Speedbird XXXX". Not "Clear take off, speedbird XXXX".

I'm sorry, guys but this makes you look gash.

Just an opinion.

------------------
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!
 
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 04:23
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,390
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Post

Agreed.
The older (boring, opinionated, ostentatious, overbearing, old fart - oops! Whatever one's favourite euphanism.) I get the more I'd say that adherance to standard procedures keeps you just a little further away from going (in a couple of seconds) from comfortable to close to disaster.

Stands proudly on moral high ground quietly disregarding former personal lapses
Basil is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 11:01
  #3 (permalink)  
curmudgeon
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Also agreed.

Although I don't work in aviation, my experience is that the average disaster happens because of a coincidental combination of circumstances, where the absence of any one of these would have either prevented the disaster or greatly mitigated it.

Therefore, if we can eliminate the small errors, which are of no significance by themselves, we may prevent the big disaster.
 
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 11:24
  #4 (permalink)  
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I couldn't agree more and I've already mentioned, in another thread, the increasing number of aircrew who do not read back ATC instructions - particularly the critical ones relating to final approach speeds.

We had great trouble in the past educating American pilots to readback instructions but they're now very good, as are the majority of overseas operators flying into LHR.

We don't have time to keep reminding people about readbacks (it took me three needless R/T exchanges to get a long-haul bloke to read-back speed and he got increasingly snotty each time) so I implore you to do it right first time and the likelihood of an incident is greatly reduced.
 
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 12:01
  #5 (permalink)  
BmPilot21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I couldn't agree more when it comes to any clearance, or tx. once airborne. I have to confess that when I started out I was very pedantic, even on LHR ground frequency. I am now slightly more 'realistic' when talking to ground. It is SO busy that i do now use non-standard phraseology, such as if changing from one ground frequency to another i just reply "point 7, Midland XXX." I'd like to think that this is being practical - I'm not being lazy, I just think that "Contact wun too wun daycimal 7, Midland XXX" takes up too much space.
 
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 12:04
  #6 (permalink)  
Flanker
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Have to say I don't quite agree on this.

I agree you must read back'Clear Take Off XYZ', but if there is a delay for wake or whatever I think its not a bad idea to give a quick 'XYZ Rolling' to let the controller know you are actually moving.

It may be a bit non standard but I think its sometimes useful.
 
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 12:44
  #7 (permalink)  
justinzider
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

"Rolling" is an RAF term I believe?

Seems pretty straight forward and unambiguous as a response to a take off clearance as long as you are in position on the correct runway.

I personally don't like the term but don't have a "problem" with it.

Relax chaps!

Justin.
 
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 12:48
  #8 (permalink)  
M.Mouse
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Secret Squirrel

What you describe is indeed gash however I think it might be unusual to have heard it so many times from BA crew.

Correct phraseology is taken very seriously by BA and in the 3 years I have had a command I have never had to correct anybody for sloppy RT. I can't say that I have ever been aware of much in my 15 years with the company.

Never quite understood the point of calling rolling, unless aked to, because it is surely fairly obvious!
 
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 12:56
  #9 (permalink)  
ethan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

Bottom Line-If you are given a clearance, you read it back correctly!! No laziness. I used to be a little bit lazy on the R/T until my captain pulled me up on it.

It only adds about .5 secs onto your transmission.

Speak correctly,

No If's And's or But's (apart from the hostie's).


Safe flying,

ethan
 
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 13:01
  #10 (permalink)  
HANGARPILOT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

This morning at Lgw i heard a kestrel and a jersey european use "rolling". It can easily be seen why at Lgw with the single runway ops
the landing clearances are getting later.
The atco's do a great job under the circumstances and the flight crews do their utmost to help.
keep it up, and as the engr il keep you flying.
"I learned about flying from that!"




[This message has been edited by HANGARPILOT (edited 23 June 2001).]
 
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 13:20
  #11 (permalink)  
Avman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Many years ago I was riding jumpseat outbound AMS. As we taxied to the hold we were cleared to "line up" (without the "wait" as I recall). The captain wasn't observing the sterile cockpit practice and was chatting to me. As we lined up he called "XXXXXX, rolling" and off we went. After take-off the tower came back and asked if we were aware that we had taken off without clearance! The captain replied in the negative but pointed out that he had called "rolling". The tower controller replied to the effect that that had alerted him - and as there was in fact no traffic to affect our departure he allowed us to continue. The moral of this long winded story is that IMHO giving a "rolling" call may not be such a bad thing. I know this incident begs many other questions but neither the Captain nor the F/O doubted that they had received a take-off clearance. I did, but failed to say anything because I thought that I may have missed the clearance whilst the Captain was chatting away to me and as a guest I didn't want to interfere.
 
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 13:47
  #12 (permalink)  
Max Angle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

A bit unfair to single BA out for this one I think (I'm not a Nigel by the way), I've heard it from lots of operators. If you are asked to report rolling then do so but the ONLY correct response to such a critical RT message is "Cleared for Take-off xxxxx". I think we are all (pilots and ATC) a little guilty of bending the rules on the radio when things are very busy but if the transmission is safety critical then there should be no deviation from what is laid down
in the manual.
 
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 14:05
  #13 (permalink)  
boris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wink

As an old and dear departed friend used to say in reply to the R/T message " xyz rolling",
" Roger, call inverted."

By the way, M Mouse, are you the same person who, when driving a BEALINE 1-11 at BFS many moons ago and being politely asked if you would like your departure clearance now. relied "go ahead, I`m all ears".
Rude remarks then followed you all the way to MAN where I had assumed you quietly died of embarrasment.

[This message has been edited by boris (edited 23 June 2001).]

[This message has been edited by boris (edited 23 June 2001).]
 
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 15:55
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Red face

SS judging by the time of your post did you come back from the pub a little tipsy? Then wallow in self pity because very shortly you will have to use that very prestigious call sign SPEEDBIRD (HA HA HA), and then come up with a sensible post which sought to launch mud at all my colleagues, I only hope you understand that the incident's you seek to address here are probably very isolated!In 60 hours and 30+ sectors so far this month I can't say I have come across it!

I could fill this forum on bad use of RT, as could many others!

PS how’s the hangover?


[This message has been edited by CRP5 (edited 23 June 2001).]
(edited for bad speling HA!

[This message has been edited by CRP5 (edited 23 June 2001).]
CRP5 is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 17:01
  #15 (permalink)  
kippa
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

SS that chip on your shoulder seems to be getting heavier. How do you like BA so far?
 
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 20:19
  #16 (permalink)  
caulfield
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I see nothing wrong with the "rolling" call in English-speaking countries...but would agree that more correct terminology is required when in continental Europe.I think you have to know when it is appropiate to cut corners.RT in the States is rapid-fire minimalism but is amongst the best in the world.
 
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 21:50
  #17 (permalink)  
chiglet
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Red face

Sorry Mr? caufield BUT calling "rolling" is IMHO a disaster just waiting to happen. At EGCC on dual r/w ops, readback of Xing landing r/w, Con/'Hon sids, Line up and Dep clearances are MADATORY! I've lost count of the number of times the Air1/Air2/ ATCO has HAD to ask for readback....from a UK crew
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

------------------
chiglet
 
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 22:06
  #18 (permalink)  
BEagle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Unhappy

Any 'rolling' call does NOT replace a readback of 'Clear take-off'. The only use I can see for it is when you are cleared for take-off but have stated that you wish to observe wake-turbulence seperation from the aeroplane departing ahead - NOT very likely from a busy international airport - but something I often do when flying a light aircraft at an aerodrome where a VC10, TriStar or C-17 has just taken off and I've been cleared for take-off.

The original idea of the military call of 'rolling' was both to indicate to subsequent aircraft in a stream take-off to start timing their stream seperation and to stop all other transmissions on that frequency until the 'airborne - to Approach' call was made in case a 'take-off abandoned' call was blocked. Not really relevant at busy civil aerodromes nowadays - there just isn't the luxury!! Nor is it relevant when we're taking off in stream in VC10s - we can easily hear when the aircraft ahead has started rolling. As, no doubt, can everyone else within the same county!!

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 23 June 2001).]
 
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 23:17
  #19 (permalink)  
fireflybob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Professional pilots "cutting corners" - surely not! How could anyone dream of such a thing?

Next thing you'll be suggesting that everyone sticks to standard R/T Phraseology, dread the thought.

Who knows, such a novel idea might prevent an accident? Now where did I put that copy of the B747 Tenerife accident......

------------------
 
Old 24th Jun 2001, 00:58
  #20 (permalink)  
M.Mouse
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Boris

The first part of your post was very funny,
I am sorry to disappoint though regarding the second part. I didn't ever fly the 1-11.

Further to the subject in question language evolves when people want to try and sound different eg the universal usage on radio and TV in the UK of 'absolutely' to mean 'yes' but I think that R/T is the last place in the world to start experimenting with our own new ideas. Recipe for disaster. 'Rolling' is not standard. Unless asked to report rolling it is also wrong to use it in response to a T/O clearance. Where does it end?

 

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.