Duplication of QNH on Clearance callup
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The UK may not be the best, but they are a hell of a lot closer to the top spot than the US!
Yank bashing is a time honoured pastime here...
Last edited by Airbubba; 13th Aug 2007 at 22:57.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hardly yank bashing old chap, just a bit of return fire....
On account of not being as perfect a pilot as 411A I would like to say thankyou to the aviation approach of belt and bracers for all the times it kept me from screwing up.
Anyway, the solution is simple. Just install Microsoft Vista in every aircraft and have it pull the QNH off a website. Nothing could go wrong then......
pb
On account of not being as perfect a pilot as 411A I would like to say thankyou to the aviation approach of belt and bracers for all the times it kept me from screwing up.
Anyway, the solution is simple. Just install Microsoft Vista in every aircraft and have it pull the QNH off a website. Nothing could go wrong then......
pb
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Data Dad -
xxx
Who uses QFE...???
It is standard in Russia and former Soviet territories, as well as China... QNH is optional in that area...
American and Eastern used QFE for long... about until late 1980s...
xxx
Our company policy is as follows - If issued a QNH, we fly QNH altitudes... If issued a QFE, we fly a QFE height... Reason... risk of error in conversion from QFE to QNH.
xxx
As to our check lists, when it comes to "altimeter", we read back xxxx always specifying millibars (or Hector Pascal) or inches.
xxx
To second 411A, I consider AMS and FRA outstanding, and generally all airports of Scandinavia as well. In UK, I have to admit that I have to pay more attention when issued a clearance. Sorry, I was trained in the USA, and accustomed to JFK, ORD or LAX... Zey spique mah kiend of Englishe...
xxx
Happy contrails
xxx
Who uses QFE...???
It is standard in Russia and former Soviet territories, as well as China... QNH is optional in that area...
American and Eastern used QFE for long... about until late 1980s...
xxx
Our company policy is as follows - If issued a QNH, we fly QNH altitudes... If issued a QFE, we fly a QFE height... Reason... risk of error in conversion from QFE to QNH.
xxx
As to our check lists, when it comes to "altimeter", we read back xxxx always specifying millibars (or Hector Pascal) or inches.
xxx
To second 411A, I consider AMS and FRA outstanding, and generally all airports of Scandinavia as well. In UK, I have to admit that I have to pay more attention when issued a clearance. Sorry, I was trained in the USA, and accustomed to JFK, ORD or LAX... Zey spique mah kiend of Englishe...
xxx
Happy contrails
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: At the end of the Met line
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember the Mahan Air that not so long ago startled the residents of Birmimgham as it did a low fly past? They were descending to an altitude with 1013 set on a low pressure day 
Guest
Posts: n/a
The reason for the readback is principally to mitigate the hazard of transcription errors - 979 instead of 997 or, in the example Sky Wave offered, 1002 instead of 1022. Differences of 1 or 2 hPa really are of little operational significance to ATC nor, I am told by pilots, to the operation of the aircraft.
The UK-specific procedures may be seen as outdated or whatever but they are all there for a reason. Having seen a transcription error of some 20hPa made in the met ob, it was interesting that two aircraft departed without comment before an inbound pointed out that there was something very wrong. There has to be a balance between belt and braces and practicality but I would suggest that there are less critical procedures that could be dispensed with than the QNH readback which might be the only cross-check with a human before the level bust!
The UK-specific procedures may be seen as outdated or whatever but they are all there for a reason. Having seen a transcription error of some 20hPa made in the met ob, it was interesting that two aircraft departed without comment before an inbound pointed out that there was something very wrong. There has to be a balance between belt and braces and practicality but I would suggest that there are less critical procedures that could be dispensed with than the QNH readback which might be the only cross-check with a human before the level bust!
Seems to me the importance of double checking is on the way down rather than on the ground. If we as pilots can be trusted to check everything during preflight then our altimeter check i.e. elevation against BARO should be enough. However on descent its a different ball game.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
belarg USA & 411a
UNBELIEVABLE!
the only thing americans do worse than atc is regime change and beer!
sfo - the laws of physics do not apply in the bay!
jfk - english is a third language and when spoken unintelligible, when understood confusing and when queried insulting! words fail me in attempting to describe the lack of faith i have in these clowns.
mia - 'speedbird big plane can y'all descend at vne to 3nm finals and then slow to 160kts by 2nm and then switch to the visual circuit for the other runaway whilst giving way to the pa38 on finals and land after the departing 737 which has just pushed from the gate and contact twr and have a nice day y'hear'
lax - i'd rather hammer rusty screws through my nuts than fly into this airport. atc are brilliant when compared to the immigration and tsa goons that await. PLEASE DENY ME ACCESS TO THIS SH@T HOLE!
phx - ahhhhh, what a relief. they handle their 1 heavy movement a day superbly!
the best and safest atc i've ever had in the usa was maarsa! only then did i ever relax.
the arrogant beast that is US avaition is truly mind blowing! the blue on blue warriors keep telling the rest of us that we don't know didly squat. well this limey has no doubt whatsoever that if any atc unit in the US could raise its standards to be half as efficient and SAFE as those in the UK then they would become 200% better than at present
latcc and lhr i salute you.
ps. the only thing more dangerous than a guard viper on your wing is the patriot battery defending your homeplate! give me your rude incompetant atc over your military any day!
the only thing americans do worse than atc is regime change and beer!
sfo - the laws of physics do not apply in the bay!
jfk - english is a third language and when spoken unintelligible, when understood confusing and when queried insulting! words fail me in attempting to describe the lack of faith i have in these clowns.
mia - 'speedbird big plane can y'all descend at vne to 3nm finals and then slow to 160kts by 2nm and then switch to the visual circuit for the other runaway whilst giving way to the pa38 on finals and land after the departing 737 which has just pushed from the gate and contact twr and have a nice day y'hear'
lax - i'd rather hammer rusty screws through my nuts than fly into this airport. atc are brilliant when compared to the immigration and tsa goons that await. PLEASE DENY ME ACCESS TO THIS SH@T HOLE!
phx - ahhhhh, what a relief. they handle their 1 heavy movement a day superbly!
the best and safest atc i've ever had in the usa was maarsa! only then did i ever relax.
the arrogant beast that is US avaition is truly mind blowing! the blue on blue warriors keep telling the rest of us that we don't know didly squat. well this limey has no doubt whatsoever that if any atc unit in the US could raise its standards to be half as efficient and SAFE as those in the UK then they would become 200% better than at present
latcc and lhr i salute you.
ps. the only thing more dangerous than a guard viper on your wing is the patriot battery defending your homeplate! give me your rude incompetant atc over your military any day!
Last edited by the heavy heavy; 17th Aug 2007 at 00:33.
Heavy, heavy
Just a teensy bit out of sorts today??
and trying to out-do e.e. cummings on the capital letters??
Yes, through airports have weird ATC procedures, they also move about twice the tin per day as Heathrow. While you British weedle out slots to LHR by the thimble, all are welcome here. Even if you don't like the place.
On to the subject...reading back QNH is like repeating the heading to the next controller--a British oddity. The controllers are supposed to coordinate BEFORE they effect the hand-off, sez so in FAAO .65 Chapter 2 and 5.
Just a teensy bit out of sorts today??
and trying to out-do e.e. cummings on the capital letters??
Yes, through airports have weird ATC procedures, they also move about twice the tin per day as Heathrow. While you British weedle out slots to LHR by the thimble, all are welcome here. Even if you don't like the place.
On to the subject...reading back QNH is like repeating the heading to the next controller--a British oddity. The controllers are supposed to coordinate BEFORE they effect the hand-off, sez so in FAAO .65 Chapter 2 and 5.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
galaxy flyer,
it's the twice tin with all the din that's my point! for example the control at jfk /ord on a poor weather day is at times verging on the insane. can do seems to have overtaken common sense in many cases. lahs! it's an accident waiting to happen in the name of extra capacity.
out of sorts, maybe. fed up with b*ll**** and bandito practices being paraded as professionalism, without a doubt.
and back to the point, what's more of an issue? being asked to repeat a qnh setting or arriving at jfk and after briefing 3 rwys ending up being forced to do a right base join on the yet another one with the wx at mins and a tailwind on limits for good measure! meanwhile expect no clarification of instructions and vague and often mis-leading traffic information throughout. i thought the idea was to make the operation as simple and as easy as possible so that when the sh*t hits the fan we have as much spare capacity as possible to deal with the problems. jfk/lax/ord/mia/sfo atc often are the problem!
if there is a an atc at an int airport anywhere in the world that will get you into a hold and subsequenlty onto an approach for an ils in cat3 wx better and safer than lhr then i've yet to see it. as for emerg handling they are without equal. if that means they wan't a rad hdg or qnh readback on handover then i for one have zero problem with that.
i don't hate the US, i do miss the bx!
fly safe,
THH
ps jfk/lax/ord i'll give u but i doubt mia/sfo/bos/phx/sea/iad move the numbers and the variety that lhr does and i'm pretty sure that latcc is right up there with numbers compared to any aatc in the world!
it's the twice tin with all the din that's my point! for example the control at jfk /ord on a poor weather day is at times verging on the insane. can do seems to have overtaken common sense in many cases. lahs! it's an accident waiting to happen in the name of extra capacity.
out of sorts, maybe. fed up with b*ll**** and bandito practices being paraded as professionalism, without a doubt.
and back to the point, what's more of an issue? being asked to repeat a qnh setting or arriving at jfk and after briefing 3 rwys ending up being forced to do a right base join on the yet another one with the wx at mins and a tailwind on limits for good measure! meanwhile expect no clarification of instructions and vague and often mis-leading traffic information throughout. i thought the idea was to make the operation as simple and as easy as possible so that when the sh*t hits the fan we have as much spare capacity as possible to deal with the problems. jfk/lax/ord/mia/sfo atc often are the problem!
if there is a an atc at an int airport anywhere in the world that will get you into a hold and subsequenlty onto an approach for an ils in cat3 wx better and safer than lhr then i've yet to see it. as for emerg handling they are without equal. if that means they wan't a rad hdg or qnh readback on handover then i for one have zero problem with that.
i don't hate the US, i do miss the bx!
fly safe,
THH
ps jfk/lax/ord i'll give u but i doubt mia/sfo/bos/phx/sea/iad move the numbers and the variety that lhr does and i'm pretty sure that latcc is right up there with numbers compared to any aatc in the world!
Last edited by the heavy heavy; 17th Aug 2007 at 00:04.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, through airports have weird ATC procedures, they also move about twice the tin per day as Heathrow. While you British weedle out slots to LHR by the thimble, all are welcome here. Even if you don't like the place.
Doesn't matter how flash (or not) the ATC is, one runway can only accept a finite amount of traffic on it. Give LHR the same number of runways as the ORDs and the DFWs and I'm sure we (the ATC) could shuffle just as many aeroplanes around... it's not rocket science after all.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On to the subject...reading back QNH is like repeating the heading to the next controller--a British oddity. The controllers are supposed to coordinate BEFORE they effect the hand-off, sez so in FAAO .65 Chapter 2 and 5.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On to the subject...reading back QNH is like repeating the heading to the next controller--a British oddity.
In addition, I have had UK controllers insist that we reduce our indicated airspeed below safe levels...such as 210KIAS.
Normally this speed would be quite OK...however as we were at FL370 and close to MLW in the hold, not especially desirable.
Clearly some of these Brit ATC boys and girls know little about aeroplane performance, which, I suppose, is not that all surprising, as a few of 'em are rather out to lunch, aircraft knowledge wise.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Wilmslow and North Yorks
Age: 53
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never understood why people have a problem with reading back the QNH and the ATIS identifier.
Surely you'd rather read it back than have it set incorrectly. It's a flight safety issue and it takes less than a second to say "QNH 1012".
Surely you'd rather read it back than have it set incorrectly. It's a flight safety issue and it takes less than a second to say "QNH 1012".
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: one dot low as usual
Age: 66
Posts: 537
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mia - 'speedbird big plane can y'all descend at vne to 3nm finals and then slow to 160kts by 2nm and then switch to the visual circuit for the other runaway whilst giving way to the pa38 on finals and land after the departing 737 which has just pushed from the gate and contact twr and have a nice day y'hear'
Great one! Sounds like my regular visits into MIA.outofsynch wonders if a change of 1 millibar is worth mentioning. Its a small adjustment, but imagine a system where there are 3 times as many units and you're adjusting the altimeter for a third of a millibar change. How daft would that be?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course 411a, all "septic tank" controllers are pro pilots too, so very au fait with aircraft speeds at MAUW at FL370 Surely a pro like yourself should know how to handle an ATC insistence when you're unable, or can't you take the heat
Surely a pro like yourself should know how to handle an ATC insistence when you're unable, or can't you take the heat
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like this thread has run its course. The xenophobes from both sides have started to froth at the mouth. Time to close this thread before 411A berates us all on how heroically he used to fly his Connie through CB's when compared to todays, peach fuzz faced yoof's poling around at M0.78 in their RJ's!
