R/T Discipline
Guest
Posts: n/a
R/T Discipline
I read the thread about clearances being acknowledged at LGW incorrectly. R/T readbacks are vitally important and I am constantly amazed at the poor standard of R/T from some pilots - some, I`m afraid to say, British! I work at LATCC, West Drayton and I reckon that every 4th instruction I give has to be repeated or corrected. I know when you guys are flying a long way, you use speakers and hand-held mics, but please, not when you`re entering the London TMA at 7.30am!!! Did you know that those hand-helds make the most awful squealing noises in our headsets which can actually make you jump with shock on first transmission - they seem especially bad in the MD-80`s and BAe146`s. When we give you a heading instruction, we will say `Heading` in the instruction - can you do the sma eback please. Classic example - "London, AIRLINE123 climbing to FL150, heading 270". Controller replies "AIRLINE123, Roger, on the heading climb to Flight Level 250". Pilot reads back "Roger, 250 on the heading"
We then have to go back and confirm that it is FL250 but still heading 270 degrees. Notice also how on reply, the pilot didn`t even use his callsign. We get a lot of people being `stepped-on` so it is essential that you use your callsign whenever you reply to us. I would be very interested to hear of any pilots` views on any of these issues.
Cheers, BB!
We then have to go back and confirm that it is FL250 but still heading 270 degrees. Notice also how on reply, the pilot didn`t even use his callsign. We get a lot of people being `stepped-on` so it is essential that you use your callsign whenever you reply to us. I would be very interested to hear of any pilots` views on any of these issues.
Cheers, BB!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Firstly, the issue of "stepped on" transmissions could be solved technically by requiring all aircraft to be fitted with "Contran", a small cost for a major contribution to safety. I believe Brittania have this system fitted to their a/c.
Secondly, as a pilot I agree with you - some of the RT one hears leaves much to be desired.
Why is this "non-standard" RT not being picked up by the companies during line checks - or don't they care?
------------------
Secondly, as a pilot I agree with you - some of the RT one hears leaves much to be desired.
Why is this "non-standard" RT not being picked up by the companies during line checks - or don't they care?
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
As a pilot, we also get annoyed by the squealing in our headsets by those pilots who use the speakers + mikes.
I think the problem might be that pilots aren't checking that the intercom (selected on the transmit/int button) selection is actually off - this tends to cause feedback. Well, that's what happens on the 146 anyway.
Hope this helps !!
[This message has been edited by Gonegrey (edited 27 June 2001).]
I think the problem might be that pilots aren't checking that the intercom (selected on the transmit/int button) selection is actually off - this tends to cause feedback. Well, that's what happens on the 146 anyway.
Hope this helps !!
[This message has been edited by Gonegrey (edited 27 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bewli-Begto raises a valid point, but it applies to all users, controllers included. Some years ago on descent from the north for LGW, we were "cleared Willow". As an infrequent visitor, it was not immediately clear that this meant "cleared for the Willow Arrival", and not "direct Willow". There was a difference!
Abbreviations are fine, but the instigator must ensure they are unambiguous. If you remember flight engineers (not systems operators), you will also remember that "take off power" was a no-no.
Abbreviations are fine, but the instigator must ensure they are unambiguous. If you remember flight engineers (not systems operators), you will also remember that "take off power" was a no-no.
Guest
Posts: n/a
BB.
This seems to happen universally in UK airspace. E.G. I check in:
"London, Callsign, FL 65 climbing FL 80, Heading 085."
ATC response (assuming no change in clearance) is generally something like:
"Callsign, climb FL80, continue present heading."
or less often:
"Callsign, climb FL80, continue heading 085".
In the former case my response would have been:
"Climb FL80, continue heading, Callsign".
In the latter case, it would have been:
"Climb FL80, continue heading 085, Callsign".
This seems consistent with the idea of reading back clearances. In the first case I've been told to not change my heading, so that's what I've read back. In the secong case I've been told to fly a specific heading (which coincidentally happens to be what I was already doing), so I read back the specific value.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that its OK for ATC to tell us to continue a heading, but that we must specify what it is when we reply, otherwise you'll have to ask us.
This seems like a different standard for ATC versus Pilots. Broadly, if its not OK to simply say continue heading then this should result:
"London, Callsign, FL 65 climbing FL80, heading 085"
"Callsign, Climb FL80, continue present heading"
Now I would have to say:
"Climb FL80, confirm its heading 085, Callsign"
etc.etc.
Now I'm not trying to split hairs or have a go, I'm a big believer in standardised RT. We are trying to get as much information content into as few words as possible, therefore the meanings of phrases must be precise.
As an aside, I don't think that standardisation on RT will ever improve unless it becomes an issue for company training departments. For example, at my mob its a big deal to reply "Checked and set" rather than "Set and Checked" in reponse to a checklist item, get it wrong and the trainer will correct you, yet at the same time you'll hear senior trainers using RT phrases that have been deleted for 10 or 15 years.
CPB
CPB
This seems to happen universally in UK airspace. E.G. I check in:
"London, Callsign, FL 65 climbing FL 80, Heading 085."
ATC response (assuming no change in clearance) is generally something like:
"Callsign, climb FL80, continue present heading."
or less often:
"Callsign, climb FL80, continue heading 085".
In the former case my response would have been:
"Climb FL80, continue heading, Callsign".
In the latter case, it would have been:
"Climb FL80, continue heading 085, Callsign".
This seems consistent with the idea of reading back clearances. In the first case I've been told to not change my heading, so that's what I've read back. In the secong case I've been told to fly a specific heading (which coincidentally happens to be what I was already doing), so I read back the specific value.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that its OK for ATC to tell us to continue a heading, but that we must specify what it is when we reply, otherwise you'll have to ask us.
This seems like a different standard for ATC versus Pilots. Broadly, if its not OK to simply say continue heading then this should result:
"London, Callsign, FL 65 climbing FL80, heading 085"
"Callsign, Climb FL80, continue present heading"
Now I would have to say:
"Climb FL80, confirm its heading 085, Callsign"
etc.etc.
Now I'm not trying to split hairs or have a go, I'm a big believer in standardised RT. We are trying to get as much information content into as few words as possible, therefore the meanings of phrases must be precise.
As an aside, I don't think that standardisation on RT will ever improve unless it becomes an issue for company training departments. For example, at my mob its a big deal to reply "Checked and set" rather than "Set and Checked" in reponse to a checklist item, get it wrong and the trainer will correct you, yet at the same time you'll hear senior trainers using RT phrases that have been deleted for 10 or 15 years.
CPB
CPB
Guest
Posts: n/a
BOAC.
You are now separated by nothing horizontally and 1000' vertically. Your code calsign and mode C readouts on the controllers display are overlapping and cluttered.
Now is not the time to skimp on a standard call.
Go on one of Blipdrivers ATC visits,
CPB
You are now separated by nothing horizontally and 1000' vertically. Your code calsign and mode C readouts on the controllers display are overlapping and cluttered.
Now is not the time to skimp on a standard call.
Go on one of Blipdrivers ATC visits,
CPB
Guest
Posts: n/a
It really winds me up when pilots call entering the hold. The landing order is already decided by then and a call "entering the hold at time xx" is, in my opinion, a waste of RT time.
I don't know what Cap 413 says, but I'd be much happier if no-one mentioned "taking up the hold"
Mind you, when you consider the traffic levels moved by the TMA and in particular, Heathrow and Gatwick hourly movements, the majority of pilots must be really quite slick. It's important to give credit to that majority when airing the critisisms of the few.
I don't know what Cap 413 says, but I'd be much happier if no-one mentioned "taking up the hold"
Mind you, when you consider the traffic levels moved by the TMA and in particular, Heathrow and Gatwick hourly movements, the majority of pilots must be really quite slick. It's important to give credit to that majority when airing the critisisms of the few.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Im surprised there hasnt been a move to give ATC direction in readable text, with a monitor in the cockpit, and open up the freqs for special occasions. What little I know about incorporating that sort of technology, but I would think it would be quite possible. Sorta like internet messaging. Afterall, Boeing is introducing internet access to aircraft soon- Or would the pilots be charged 20 dollars an hour for the use? Seriously though.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Had a quick look in MATS pt1,However I cannot actualy find anything about holding R/T proc's for pilots.
Although it may annoy LTMA controllers I would strongly suggest that pilots report entering the hold.
i) not everybody involved in a holding stack has radar available to them.
ii) It is a good "nudge" for the ATCO when an a/c reports XXX entering hold at FL80.It informs the ATCO which levels remain ready to use.
Remember we are not allowed to use radar for seperation in the hold ,it has got to be procedural.
FiM
Although it may annoy LTMA controllers I would strongly suggest that pilots report entering the hold.
i) not everybody involved in a holding stack has radar available to them.
ii) It is a good "nudge" for the ATCO when an a/c reports XXX entering hold at FL80.It informs the ATCO which levels remain ready to use.
Remember we are not allowed to use radar for seperation in the hold ,it has got to be procedural.
FiM
Guest
Posts: n/a
Can't really see the idea of readable text catching on, not until the dreaded day when ATC has direct control of aircraft via data-link!! Anyway, who would type the messages on the ground - wouldn't want to trust voice recognition software! How would you get the information about other aircrafts' relative positions/altitudes? Even when it's busy going into LHR for example, I try to keep a mental picture going (sometimes a bit fuzzy though!).