ATC... Bollockings for all
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lucifer I think you are wrong, you are advocating cluttering up the frequency with unnecessary transmissions, might work at MAN but just try not reading back the precise R/W designator at somewhere like ORD or LAX, try getting a word in edge ways for that matter.
If the read back is correct in the first place then there is no need for clarification and to leave out the L, R or C, (Jeddah etc.) is very unprofessional and incorrect R/T.
If the read back is correct in the first place then there is no need for clarification and to leave out the L, R or C, (Jeddah etc.) is very unprofessional and incorrect R/T.
Just for clarification, my comments relate specifically to operating into MAN and specifically the use of Rwy 24R.
"localiser established Rwy 24" leaves no room for ambiguity, confusion, human factors bumf, or non sensical alleged R/T bollockings for putting a "left" or "right" after the rwy number.
Simply, again
, there is only an ILS on rwy 24R at MAN.
All this navel gazing about left or right misses the point relating to this specific airport, and specific runway
"localiser established Rwy 24" leaves no room for ambiguity, confusion, human factors bumf, or non sensical alleged R/T bollockings for putting a "left" or "right" after the rwy number.
Simply, again
, there is only an ILS on rwy 24R at MAN.All this navel gazing about left or right misses the point relating to this specific airport, and specific runway
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey! This is more depressing than any soap opera! 
From UK Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 CAP493:
Appendix E
5.6.1 Pilots are required to read back in full messages containing any of the following items:
........Runway-in-use......
5.6.2 Controllers are to prompt a pilot if a read back is not immediately forthcoming.
5.6.3 Errors in a read back must be corrected by the controller until the pilot gives an accurate read back.
From CAP413 UK R/T Manual:
Chapter 4
1.7.8 When several runways are in use.........the runway number will be stated.
Monarch Man,
Altering standard phraseology to suit 'specific airports and specific runways' is dangerous. I can't understand how anyone could advocate it.
From UK Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 CAP493:
Appendix E
5.6.1 Pilots are required to read back in full messages containing any of the following items:
........Runway-in-use......
5.6.2 Controllers are to prompt a pilot if a read back is not immediately forthcoming.
5.6.3 Errors in a read back must be corrected by the controller until the pilot gives an accurate read back.
From CAP413 UK R/T Manual:
Chapter 4
1.7.8 When several runways are in use.........the runway number will be stated.
Monarch Man,
Altering standard phraseology to suit 'specific airports and specific runways' is dangerous. I can't understand how anyone could advocate it.
From CAP413 UK R/T Manual:
Chapter 4
1.7.8 When several runways are in use.........the runway number will be stated.
Monarch Man,
Altering standard phraseology to suit 'specific airports and specific runways is dangerous'. I can't understand how anyone could advocate it.
Chapter 4
1.7.8 When several runways are in use.........the runway number will be stated.
Monarch Man,
Altering standard phraseology to suit 'specific airports and specific runways is dangerous'. I can't understand how anyone could advocate it.
Quoting chapter and verse out of CAP 413 smacks of a barrack room lawyer mentality.
standard phraseology is often trumpeted as the solution to everything from level busts, to runway incursion, in point of fact reading back and understanding a clearance are the salient points here and not, an issue of saying left or right.
If you can't be arsed to say 24L or 24R then get a paper round.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
reading back and understanding a clearance are the salient points here
What an interesting phrase 'barrack room lawyer' is. Funnily enough, I'm quite interested in the etymology of words and phrases, so I looked this one up. It seems there are a few different meanings:
- A person who, although unqualified, insists on giving advice.
- A person that can get out of trouble by a thorough knowledge of the rules.
- A somewhat insubordinate nuisance, who usually has right on his side.
Perhaps you could clarify which particular meaning you were using in your post?
Knowing procedures and rules is an integral part of my job. But then you knew that. I'd imagine that it's an important part of your job too.
MAN runway layout is an accident waiting to happen. It's my impression that ATC are under very strict instructions to maintain perfect R/T.
They've always been a bit too fond of handing out bollockings though. Perhaps a few MOR's would change that culture.
They've always been a bit too fond of handing out bollockings though. Perhaps a few MOR's would change that culture.
Be the Big Man and just add the 14 millisecond phrase "right/left".
Then everyone is happy, non-stressed, concenrating on the job and WHOOPS saves the day by stopping doing something they aren't supposed to.
CRM invloves the man on the headset, the ATC and even the CAA. As you well know.
Cheers
WWW
Then everyone is happy, non-stressed, concenrating on the job and WHOOPS saves the day by stopping doing something they aren't supposed to.
CRM invloves the man on the headset, the ATC and even the CAA. As you well know.
Cheers
WWW
Correct. Therefore reading back '24R' is required, if the ATCO has used '24R' in his clearance.
We all rely on the redundancy of the systems, the safeguards that will hopefully stop all the holes a given day lining up, part of that is taking a practical approach to a situation, not blind obedience that does nothing to improve SA for a specific set of circumstances.
As for my Barrack room lawyer comment;
Yes it is true definitions vary, but my use of the comment is in the context of saying that you can quote the rules all you like however "there is the way it should be, and the way it is"
WWW, no I'm not, and please don't make assumptions on my behalf
I am saying that in order to understand why we do, what we do, why certain errors, omissions, or incidents occur, we first have to understand the methodology and nature of our actions.
Standard phraseology has a place in this, but taken to the en-th degree does "fife" or "five" contribute to an improvement in flight safety?
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? All it does is add another layer that gets lost in the fog of 2 or 3 instructions
My argument relates to a practical standpoint, not as you may believe, a disagreement to the basic principles.
24L/R is neither here nor there, how can you be established on a non-existent ILS?
I am saying that in order to understand why we do, what we do, why certain errors, omissions, or incidents occur, we first have to understand the methodology and nature of our actions.
Standard phraseology has a place in this, but taken to the en-th degree does "fife" or "five" contribute to an improvement in flight safety?
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? All it does is add another layer that gets lost in the fog of 2 or 3 instructions
My argument relates to a practical standpoint, not as you may believe, a disagreement to the basic principles.
24L/R is neither here nor there, how can you be established on a non-existent ILS?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monarch Man
I suggest you go back to the original post and re-read it.
It appears the poster was corrected for not reading back "cleared to LAND 24R" or "cleared for take off 24R", does not mention anywhere calling established on the localiser!!!!!
There is no excuse for lazyness and some people need to get more.
I suggest you go back to the original post and re-read it.
It appears the poster was corrected for not reading back "cleared to LAND 24R" or "cleared for take off 24R", does not mention anywhere calling established on the localiser!!!!!
There is no excuse for lazyness and some people need to get more.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monarch Man
Your attitude shown towards basic R/T 'STANDARD' on this topic is quite disturbing. What's even more disturbing is your self belief that because of your untarnished safety record, you're vindicated in you decision to alter the rules to fit the 'real World'. The only 'World' that it appears to be in is your very own! You reveal a level of complacency and arrogance which has no place on the flight deck. Especially not a creditable operater like Monarch.
Many have quoted enough examples on here already in which fatal accidents have been caused by confusion and poor R/T discipline. This has nothing to do with Lawyers but everything to do with the fallibility and limitations as human beings. It's because OF the real world that we have these rules my friend! Accidents will always happen and that is unfortunate. But to have an accident and learn nothing from it is unforgiveable. As for complacency;
" When anyone asks me how I can best describe my experience of nearly 40 years at sea, I merely say - uneventful. Of course there have been winter gales and storms and fog and the like, but in all my experience I have never been involved in an accident of any sort worth speaking about. I have seen but one vessel in distress in all my years at sea. I never saw a wreck, nor have I been wrecked, nor was I in any predicament that threatened to end in disaster of any sort!"
Capt E.J.Smith
Captain of the SS Titanic - during an interview in 1907. Captain Smith, along with 1500 innocent people remain with the ship today.
Your attitude shown towards basic R/T 'STANDARD' on this topic is quite disturbing. What's even more disturbing is your self belief that because of your untarnished safety record, you're vindicated in you decision to alter the rules to fit the 'real World'. The only 'World' that it appears to be in is your very own! You reveal a level of complacency and arrogance which has no place on the flight deck. Especially not a creditable operater like Monarch.
Many have quoted enough examples on here already in which fatal accidents have been caused by confusion and poor R/T discipline. This has nothing to do with Lawyers but everything to do with the fallibility and limitations as human beings. It's because OF the real world that we have these rules my friend! Accidents will always happen and that is unfortunate. But to have an accident and learn nothing from it is unforgiveable. As for complacency;
" When anyone asks me how I can best describe my experience of nearly 40 years at sea, I merely say - uneventful. Of course there have been winter gales and storms and fog and the like, but in all my experience I have never been involved in an accident of any sort worth speaking about. I have seen but one vessel in distress in all my years at sea. I never saw a wreck, nor have I been wrecked, nor was I in any predicament that threatened to end in disaster of any sort!"
Capt E.J.Smith
Captain of the SS Titanic - during an interview in 1907. Captain Smith, along with 1500 innocent people remain with the ship today.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monarch Man,
You wouldn't be the Monarch pilot that refuses to use his full callsign as well, would you? I had to put up with this all the way from MONTY to LAMAT and found it very disconcerting in a very busy session.
Standard RT is there for a reason. When I'm busy, I go back to that standard RT, no embellishments or shortcuts. I also slow down transmissions to aid thinking time etc. Having someone else cutting corners means that I really have to focus on their readback more than most.
Whilst I can see the arguement of you point, I would ask you, as a professional, to stick to the standard RT. It may seem to you to be OK to cut corners at MAN, but if you continue to amend your RT it could get you into trouble elsewhere.
Regards
CF
You wouldn't be the Monarch pilot that refuses to use his full callsign as well, would you? I had to put up with this all the way from MONTY to LAMAT and found it very disconcerting in a very busy session.
Standard RT is there for a reason. When I'm busy, I go back to that standard RT, no embellishments or shortcuts. I also slow down transmissions to aid thinking time etc. Having someone else cutting corners means that I really have to focus on their readback more than most.
Whilst I can see the arguement of you point, I would ask you, as a professional, to stick to the standard RT. It may seem to you to be OK to cut corners at MAN, but if you continue to amend your RT it could get you into trouble elsewhere.
Regards
CF
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Monarch Man. I am truly concerned by your attitude. You may not realise it but your posts come across as arrogant and stubborn. If you cannot see why adding "degrees" to a heading instruction ending in a zero i.e. 240 degrees , enhances flight safety then perhaps it's time you hung up your headset.
You insist you are right, you seem to think CRM is worthless. You come across as totally complacent with your "I've been all right for years" attitude. Your comment about "you cannot be established on 24L because it doesn't have an ILS" whilst technically correct is totally crass.
Deep down you know you're wrong - but just won't admit it. Loss of face.
UK airspace is getting busier and busier and it is beholden upon everyone to operate in a totally professional manner.
Out.
A4
You insist you are right, you seem to think CRM is worthless. You come across as totally complacent with your "I've been all right for years" attitude. Your comment about "you cannot be established on 24L because it doesn't have an ILS" whilst technically correct is totally crass.
Deep down you know you're wrong - but just won't admit it. Loss of face.
UK airspace is getting busier and busier and it is beholden upon everyone to operate in a totally professional manner.
Out.
A4
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monarch Man,
Please tell me how using the runway designator does not add to SA, or how not using the designator does add to SA.
Are you advocation only using standard phraseology when it clearly increases SA?
That's difficult to quantify. However, I use 'fife' and that's never been misunderstood or mistaken for another numeral. Interestingly, that's the same argument that you're using for utilising non-standard R/T. Ironic really, isn't it?
Interesting. So all those instances of aircraft being instructed to fly heading xxx and actually climbing/descending to xxx instead were just coincidence?
part of that is taking a practical approach to a situation, not blind obedience that does nothing to improve SA for a specific set of circumstances.
Are you advocation only using standard phraseology when it clearly increases SA?
Standard phraseology has a place in this, but taken to the en-th degree does "fife" or "five" contribute to an improvement in flight safety?
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? All it does is add another layer that gets lost in the fog of 2 or 3 instructions
My argument relates to a practical standpoint, not as you may believe, a disagreement to the basic principles.
My argument relates to a practical standpoint, not as you may believe, a disagreement to the basic principles.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When anyone asks me how I can best describe my experience of nearly 40 years at sea, I merely say - uneventful.
My point was not intended to bring the r/t purists out of the woodwork but to make a valid point. Not one of us seems to have an issue with the recent r/t directives on requiring runway entry point readback when given lineup clearance. It started at MAN with the 'second readback' of the departure clearance just as you were lining up and finishing the pre-TO checks. I know one or two colleagues who MOR'ed that and the thankfully the daft procedure seems to have stopped. Then there was the dictat that the ATIS should increment an issue every time a single parameter changed. You copied ALPHA in descent only to hear FOXTROT current from the approach controller... who of course told you to copy the latest!
Controllers at LHR & LGW are probably the best in the world however they witness some quite appalling r/t from visiting a/c. They make corrections where required and where the possibility of misunderstanding might arise from an ambiguous readback they ask for a repeat... and I believe that level of intervention is spot-on. If they believed that there were persistent offenders I am sure they would not hesitate in passing the tapes to the CAA.
The issue at MAN is quite different they are tip-top at doing their own thing regardless of what happens in the rest of the world. OK so they designed a crap runway layout... I think we are all agreed on that, but that is by-the-by. The r/t cleansing crusade I witnessed the other day was well beyond what is acceptable because it was audibly winding pilots up and that is not good in a busy environment. The guy was taking so long bollocking people that he was then having to rush regular operating clearances.
There is no difference between MAN and any other medium sized airfield.... same difficulties & same dangers.... yet Manchester ATC seem content to live in a bubble fighting their particular crusades and pretend that they are the only airfield in the world.
