ATC... Bollockings for all
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cheshire, England
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice words Homepage, and thank you for emphasising the human side of being on the receiving end. I would like to think that I have a sympathetic ear and gentle reply when you are feeling jaded, which I hope I can sense by the tone in the voice. What you say to your colleague on the flightdeck may be just as vehement as my outburst in the tower or ops room. As we watch the swan gliding gently past on the river it is as well we can't see what's going on below the waterline!
but she dose make for good fun when you are not on the receving end Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Deepest darkest Inbredland....
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole thread is very interesting. Can I ask a question? How often do pilots get their RT checked? (Sorry that was 2 questions!).
I get mine checked every 3 months by an LCE with the big check annually. Perhaps pilots should get their RT checked regularly as sometimes it is appalling and trying to get a reasonable readback sometimes is impossible. Otherwise the rest of you, except Monarch Man, are great. Thank You.
I get mine checked every 3 months by an LCE with the big check annually. Perhaps pilots should get their RT checked regularly as sometimes it is appalling and trying to get a reasonable readback sometimes is impossible. Otherwise the rest of you, except Monarch Man, are great. Thank You.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: BHX
Age: 44
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See my Q on ATC forum re hdg and Fl and degrees - interesting responses.
The answer to your question - every 6 months on LPC, every year on OPC, line check and every time with a trg pilot
The answer to your question - every 6 months on LPC, every year on OPC, line check and every time with a trg pilot
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: LTCC
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Monarch Man
I was interested in your comments about 'The recent introduction of an additional "degrees" comment requirement onto radar heading read backs is another classic case of an additional layer of phraseology that serves no real purpose, after all, radar heading instructions are proceeded by the qualifier "fly heading xxx" or "turn left/right onto heading xxx" where does adding "degrees" improve flight safety or SA?'
Pilots confusing a level and heading instruction i.e climbing or descending to the heading rather than the cleared level used to account for 11% of level busts in the UK. Following the introduction of the adding the word degrees to headings ending in 0 the same error now accounts for less than 1%
Perhaps I'm missing something but it looks to me like the use of this additional phraseology has served a purpose
I was interested in your comments about 'The recent introduction of an additional "degrees" comment requirement onto radar heading read backs is another classic case of an additional layer of phraseology that serves no real purpose, after all, radar heading instructions are proceeded by the qualifier "fly heading xxx" or "turn left/right onto heading xxx" where does adding "degrees" improve flight safety or SA?'
Pilots confusing a level and heading instruction i.e climbing or descending to the heading rather than the cleared level used to account for 11% of level busts in the UK. Following the introduction of the adding the word degrees to headings ending in 0 the same error now accounts for less than 1%
Perhaps I'm missing something but it looks to me like the use of this additional phraseology has served a purpose
Perhaps I'm missing something but it looks to me like the use of this additional phraseology has served a purpose
Could it also be a product of the mindset of both pilots and ATCO's alike that this issue has been highlighted?
Could it be a product of the processes at work?
Is it a product of the increased awareness from CP's down to the average line pilot, along with numerous NAT's publications, safety notices, and company aircrew memoranda that has served to improve the appreciation of the nature of the level bust issue.
Pilots confusing a level and heading instruction i.e climbing or descending to the heading rather than the cleared level used to account for 11% of level busts in the UK.
Then again what would I know, I'm clearly a majority of one in this thread.
Guest
Posts: n/a
One thing is for sure. Next time there is a Monarch plane nearby, either on the ground or in the air, I will get my aircraft away in a hurry. No-one will know anything about what he is doing or where he is going 
There is a total lunatic in my current company who doesn't know anything about procedures, airlaw, atc, or r/t. Funny enough, he is ex Monarch as well..... do they train you guys to be dangerous or do you take special classes??
And Monarch Man:
Regard your comment about me not being able to compose a sentence right, then let me inform you that I am not native English... I am one of the "imports" but would not expect you to be flexible enough to accept my lessor skills in your language. Types like you never are
There is a total lunatic in my current company who doesn't know anything about procedures, airlaw, atc, or r/t. Funny enough, he is ex Monarch as well..... do they train you guys to be dangerous or do you take special classes??
And Monarch Man:
Regard your comment about me not being able to compose a sentence right, then let me inform you that I am not native English... I am one of the "imports" but would not expect you to be flexible enough to accept my lessor skills in your language. Types like you never are
Could it also be a product of the mindset ......... etc
There is a total lunatic in my current company who doesn't know anything about procedures, airlaw, atc, or r/t. Funny enough, he is ex Monarch as well..... do they train you guys to be dangerous or do you take special classes??
With respect of the "import" tag you have labeled yourself with, I am glad you feel able to share. You are right however, types such as myself are never satisfied, if we were, it would show an arrogance and disrespect for the dynamic and challenging environment we all choose to work in.
Is it beyond the bounds of balance Up and Down for you to share with us the company that you work for? It is abundantly clear you are happy to cast baseless aspersions in the direction of my employer, without offering any substance to your opinions. I wonder if I may have the opportunity to respond in a similar baseless fashion?
Speke, for the record, I think you ATCO boys/girls do a magnificent job, inspite the many ill-conceived and poorly implemented procedures we all try to abide by.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stupendous!
This is Fanatstic ! Both Magplug and Monarch Man have been given RED cards by the many referees on this site, and QUITE RIGHTLY SO, over their non-adherance to plain speaking Standard R/T. One or two Man controllers are on Yellows, but the one of those (Female) has retired, so breath easy chaps and chapessess ( Provided that's the correct one )???So I propose that we introduce for one day, as a partial experiment to see if Plug & MM were right in their assumption that standard R/T is a P*ss take, A "Shakespere delivery Day", or a "Roman numeral Day". What fun we could have? " Monarch victor india, victor, india fly heading india india victor and climb to FL x-ray victor india india india", or " Verily I say unto thee Shuttle 2915 holdeth shorteth of 24 right less the peril of an incurrsion be thrust upon thee"!
What a spectacle it could prove to be, with aircraft going around from all sorts of runway directions, climbing and descending to very odd levels. The admission price for the Aviation Viewing Park would be at a premium!
However I don't like death and destruction much, so I think I'll just stick to what I know best, and to what I know works to everybodies satisfaction usually.
Bye the bye, it may not be too long before 24L does have an ILS! Will all hell be let loose then???? (No because it'll be 23L!!) Happy Days
Guest
Posts: n/a
MonarchMan, I appreciate your understanding for the dynamic environment we all live in, but if you are that flexible i just wonder why it is such a problem for you to try an contribute to the attempt to increase flightsafety for all of us. If this can be done by helping atc with adding a single extra word to your message, then you should be happy to do that with your overwelming flexibility for changes and challenges.
Maybe you are so good that you never make errors, but some of us are not, and the error could be made on the ground as well within ATC, but no matter where it is done, the chances for correcting an error is so much greater if people work together and not agains each other.
I do think that refusing to add that little extra, even when required to do so by the local procedures, DO show arrogance and disrespect for the dynamic and challenging environment we all choose to work in.
With regards to the company I work for, then No, I have no intentions of using them as an alias for my private oppinions in here. I doubt any company will be thrilled about being part of a discussion as the one going on here.
Maybe you are so good that you never make errors, but some of us are not, and the error could be made on the ground as well within ATC, but no matter where it is done, the chances for correcting an error is so much greater if people work together and not agains each other.
I do think that refusing to add that little extra, even when required to do so by the local procedures, DO show arrogance and disrespect for the dynamic and challenging environment we all choose to work in.
With regards to the company I work for, then No, I have no intentions of using them as an alias for my private oppinions in here. I doubt any company will be thrilled about being part of a discussion as the one going on here
.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Age: 44
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whislt we're at it....
Might i add that any heading ending with '5' (275') does not require the suffix degrees!
270' = two even zero degrees
275' = two seven five
I hear too many times ATC issuing clearances with the suffix degrees when it isnt needed....
Also cardinal points can be addressed as their names - North 360 - south 180 etc etc......
two penneths worth...done and dusted!
Thank you, please
Might i add that any heading ending with '5' (275') does not require the suffix degrees!
270' = two even zero degrees
275' = two seven five
I hear too many times ATC issuing clearances with the suffix degrees when it isnt needed....
Also cardinal points can be addressed as their names - North 360 - south 180 etc etc......
two penneths worth...done and dusted!
Thank you, please
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Longchop
I agree that we don't need degrees. See the forum in ATC started by FLYB.
I don't say it even if it ends with a zero.
As FLYB has stated..interesting opinions.
I agree that we don't need degrees. See the forum in ATC started by FLYB.
I don't say it even if it ends with a zero.
As FLYB has stated..interesting opinions.
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"With regards to the company I work for, then No, I have no intentions of using them as an alias for my private oppinions in here. I doubt any company will be thrilled about being part of a discussion as the one going on here"
UADO Couldn't agree more, its bad enough reading his childish and arrogant point of view but he goes on to tarnish his company name with such drivel.
If he believes he is so right then I hope he continues his one man crusade during his next line and sim check. Every company has them and it is only a matter of time before they are weeded out.
AA
UADO Couldn't agree more, its bad enough reading his childish and arrogant point of view but he goes on to tarnish his company name with such drivel.
If he believes he is so right then I hope he continues his one man crusade during his next line and sim check. Every company has them and it is only a matter of time before they are weeded out.
AA
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick reminder:
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.
So, would the sanctimonious/holier than thou brigades please try and remember that when ASSuming that one persons Username means that they actually work for a particular airline. Better still, please stop trying to impress upon us that, because you read it on here, that you are now going to avoid any approaches in your puddlejumper if you hear the callsign of a particular airline behind you.
Oh, and another thing... if you think what's being described here as a bollocking then you have obviously never been to JFK or EWR where the ground controllers can use a level of verbal violence that has been known to reduce some crews to shivering wrecks in need of PTS counselling.
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.
So, would the sanctimonious/holier than thou brigades please try and remember that when ASSuming that one persons Username means that they actually work for a particular airline. Better still, please stop trying to impress upon us that, because you read it on here, that you are now going to avoid any approaches in your puddlejumper if you hear the callsign of a particular airline behind you.
Oh, and another thing... if you think what's being described here as a bollocking then you have obviously never been to JFK or EWR where the ground controllers can use a level of verbal violence that has been known to reduce some crews to shivering wrecks in need of PTS counselling.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
opnot said:
Yes. On my last visit on Monday I was not asked for a second readback.
I understand from your post that not only do you work at MAN ATC but furthermore are not receptive to feedback.
When you ask a pilot for a second readback of the ATC clearance between giving line-up clearance and then issuing the take-off clearance you are introducing a distraction on the flight deck at a critical moment. On most jets the pre-take off checklist is partially run to the point of awaiting line-up clearance. On receipt of the clearance to line-up or T/o the rest of the VA's are then completed. If you introduce a distraction at that point of asking for yet another readback of the departure SID then the crew must stop the checklist and deselect the SOP displayed page on the FMC to confirm the SID and then return to the SOP displayed page and then..... did we do the pre-T/O vital actions.....? 'cos the guy just told us to take off..........? What may seem like a minor thing to you actually introduces a very unwelcome & dangerous distraction for someone else.
The possible departure error of 'Pilot reads-back X but then does Y' exists at all airfields although at very low levels and is usually found to be caused by one pilot having taken the ATC clearance un-monitored by the other.
If you are having a greater problem with this issue at MAN than any other airfield then there must be a good reason for it as the same companies with the same SOP's seem to get on alright everywhere else. Perhaps some smarter analysis of those incidents might reveal shortcomings associated with critical similarities in the design of the SIDS or even something as simple as SID nomenclature. Would I also be correct in saying the 2 (confusing) southbound SID's, HON & LISTO, only exist as two separate departures merely for environmental reasons ?
I have read the replies from MAN ATC to MOR's from my company on this issue and the attitude seems to be 'This is the way we are going to do so live with it'. Frankly, that is where I draw my conclusions about MAN ATC.
What is not needed is the imposition of unilateral fixes with no regard for other more important flight safety areas.
magplug
I assume in your latest moan ,reading back your Sid before departure, you are referring to to the listo / honiley check.
This check came in because professional airline pilots!!!!!! are issued a Honiley Sid and deciced to fly a Listo SID in doing so screwed up any in built separation.Also this procedure has not stopped, so do you really know what you are talking about
I assume in your latest moan ,reading back your Sid before departure, you are referring to to the listo / honiley check.
This check came in because professional airline pilots!!!!!! are issued a Honiley Sid and deciced to fly a Listo SID in doing so screwed up any in built separation.Also this procedure has not stopped, so do you really know what you are talking about
I understand from your post that not only do you work at MAN ATC but furthermore are not receptive to feedback.
When you ask a pilot for a second readback of the ATC clearance between giving line-up clearance and then issuing the take-off clearance you are introducing a distraction on the flight deck at a critical moment. On most jets the pre-take off checklist is partially run to the point of awaiting line-up clearance. On receipt of the clearance to line-up or T/o the rest of the VA's are then completed. If you introduce a distraction at that point of asking for yet another readback of the departure SID then the crew must stop the checklist and deselect the SOP displayed page on the FMC to confirm the SID and then return to the SOP displayed page and then..... did we do the pre-T/O vital actions.....? 'cos the guy just told us to take off..........? What may seem like a minor thing to you actually introduces a very unwelcome & dangerous distraction for someone else.
The possible departure error of 'Pilot reads-back X but then does Y' exists at all airfields although at very low levels and is usually found to be caused by one pilot having taken the ATC clearance un-monitored by the other.
If you are having a greater problem with this issue at MAN than any other airfield then there must be a good reason for it as the same companies with the same SOP's seem to get on alright everywhere else. Perhaps some smarter analysis of those incidents might reveal shortcomings associated with critical similarities in the design of the SIDS or even something as simple as SID nomenclature. Would I also be correct in saying the 2 (confusing) southbound SID's, HON & LISTO, only exist as two separate departures merely for environmental reasons ?
I have read the replies from MAN ATC to MOR's from my company on this issue and the attitude seems to be 'This is the way we are going to do so live with it'. Frankly, that is where I draw my conclusions about MAN ATC.
What is not needed is the imposition of unilateral fixes with no regard for other more important flight safety areas.
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny should you allow anyone to use a username that implies they work for a company after all it is pretty irrelevent if they do or don't. On second thoughts I think it is far worse if they don't. It doesn't take too much intelligence to come up with a non aligned original username.
Some people do actually take offence when their company name is hijacked in this way and I thought causing offence was something you discouraged.
I think your response was rather over the top and silly.
Some people do actually take offence when their company name is hijacked in this way and I thought causing offence was something you discouraged.
I think your response was rather over the top and silly.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: stoke on trent
Age: 75
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
man tower
i was at gatwick a few years ago and a plane actually tried to land on the taxiway so more info given by both pilot and control the better i say for saftey all round
caulkinpeter
caulkinpeter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North of Watford
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps all of us might like to review our RT procedures by a quick review of CAP 413. Must say I'm fed up to the back teeth of hearing the likes of "THE SPEEDBIRD, THE MIDLAND Etc " I always thought the reply to a clearance to land was not 'cleared to land callsign xxx' but ' Land 24R Callsign xxx'
Perhaps someone might confirm
Perhaps someone might confirm