JAL plane attempts takeoff without permission in Hokkaido

[Donalde]

Classic......it happens just about anywhere, both by aircraft and ATC.

What I mean is when unnecessary communications take place.
In this case the Controller should not have said anything about "expect......", just have remained quiet until the standard "cleared for takeoff".

Not only do these extra non-standad transmissions transmissions stand a chance of being mis-understood, they also block up the frequency.

Just shut up, and use only standard phaseology.

[cribble]

Motaderim

I, too, used to get pissed off when 'non-standard' procedures occured. Then I " ..got some time in, son.."

Take a look at ICAO Doc 8168 (PANSOPS VOL1 Aircraft Operations) Table I-3-4-1.


Start point is http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/

"we're not in Kansas now, Toto.."

edited to say..smillies disabled to let url work... doh!

[anotherthing]

Planeenglish has already mentioned about not jumping to conclusions but sobelena et al have decided to interperet it the way they want, and give a damning condemnation on Japanese ATC!

According to Japan Airlines, the pilot in command of JAL flight 502, a Boeing 747 passenger jet bound for Tokyo's Haneda airport, misheard an instruction by an air traffic controller in English, or the controller may have used terminology that was misunderstood. The controller told the aircraft that it was expected to be cleared for takeoff soon but the pilot apparently misunderstood it as an order for an immediate takeoff, the airline said.

As usual, the clue is in the journalistic (sic) report.

[QUOTE]According to Japan Airlines, the pilot in command of JAL flight 502, a Boeing 747 passenger jet bound for Tokyo's Haneda airport, misheard an instruction by an air traffic controller in English, or the controller may have used terminology that was misunderstood.[/QUOTE]

Firstly - it's according to some unspecified source.

Second - It was possibly the pilot who misheard an instruction.

Third - It was possibly the ATCO using wrong phraseology.

In other words, as it stands at the time of the report, (the very piece of journalism that everone on here is basing their assumptions on), no one other than those directly involved has a clue what actually happened.

The controller told the aircraft that it was expected to be cleared for takeoff soon but the pilot apparently misunderstood it as an order for an immediate takeoff, the airline said.

The journalist/airline then goes on to contradict itself by stating what it claims excatly happened i.e. both parties got it wrong, not just one or the other.

There are some very good comments on here regarding sticking to the use of 1 language worldwide, using standard phraseology... What people should not be doing is apportioning blame to one party or the other without fact.

If - supposition here - the ATCO did use phraseology as mentioned above, then it was wrong to do so... however is the pilot totally blameless for reacting to an instruction that was non standard?

Instead of laying blame on people why not try to use these instances to engender better and safer practices.

Let pilots know that not only is it OK, but it is neccessary that they question any instruction that they are not sure of - this includes times if instructions are ambiguous due to poor use of phraseology.

Some countries still have a long, long way to go before they have a flight safety culture that will actually help to improve safety by learning from other peoples mistakes.
I would go as far as to say that because of the way some nations legal systems work, some countries have a long, long way to go to have a flight safety culture full stop, never mind one that works.

In no way am I suggesting that Japan is one of these - I do not have the knowledge of Japans operations to do so.

[Shield Slam]

From Daily Yomiuri Online
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national...18TDY02302.htm


>> "Prepare for immediate takeoff. An aircraft has just landed and is on the runway," the controller told the pilot. "There's a plane behind you at a distance of 10 kilometers making its final landing approach."

Avoid "takeoff"

[BelArgUSA]

Chitose ATCO and JAL

Well, even in South America, we say "ready to go", not "ready for takeoff"...
And when we speak Español (which you hate us for using), we say "listo"...
Listo - simply means "ready" -
xxx
¿...Plisse telle mi witch ingliche ay mest pronunse...? -
xxx
Oxford English...?
BBC English...?
Cockney English...?
Yorkshire English...?
UKistan English...?
Canadian English...?
American Yank English...?
American Ebonics English...?
American Hillbilly/Alabama English...?
JFK/ORD Clearance Delivery English...?
Carribean English...?
Australian English...?
New Zealand English...?
South African English...?
East African English...?
West African English...?
India/Pakistan/Bangladouche/Sri Lankan English...?
Malaysian/Singaporean English...?
Antarctic English...? (Pinguinese)
Microsoft Flight Simulator English...?
Ppruner's English...? (also include Level 4 spelling) -
xxx
Just curious as to which one to use. Eventually, I might try it.
I heard something about speaking ICAO Level 4 English. How about Level 4 pronunciation...?
xxx

Happy contrails

[moosp]

Brilliant BelArg. And that is before we go around the English speaking countries and try another 100 regional accents.

Like the aircraft that we fly, the ATC procedures were designed for the 1960s. Using the human voice to start something technical is amazingly outdated. Can you imagine a modern ship starting under way by a chap calling full ahead both, or an Olympic sprint being started by a chap shouting "ready steady go!?"

Notpilotatall has the idea that aviation used in the beginning, but is unlikely to be introduced because it does not generate enough dollars for the aerospace industry. They need technical complexity to sell lots of fancy technology. Pity, as it would be a good system and it worked for 50 odd years in aviation. I have never made a mistake on a take off clearance when waiting for a green Aldis from the tower.

My heartfelt plea is to the monolingual English speakers out there to spend time and effort learning the nuances of English spoken as a foreign language. I have seen so many monolingual English pilots simply shut off from the heavily accented but easily understood phrasing and demand in sometimes unpleasant terms for repeats or a different controller.

We all know the story of "Can you speak more roundly...".

[BelArgUSA]

Hola moosp -
xxx
Just read my thread nº 215 (page 11) in "Level 4 ICAO English"...
Just an anecdote about Mumbai - Sorry, we cannot make everybody happy in R/T...!
xxx

Happy contrails

[Greg_ATCO]

Well who do you think is to blame for this, the english speaking ATCO, the semi deaf pilot, or the visually impaired ground controller who missed the large yellow blob on the screen calmly making its way up the runway?? The instruction from the ATCO would have been repeated back, so would the ATCO not have noticed then?? Surely the ground controller is expected to see this?

[Rumble]

Perhaps not in this instance but actually the word 'expect' is actually a completely standard bit of clearance terminology & has a very specific meaning, which is:- if you lose comms carry out the instructions that were given after the word expect.

[757_Driver]

Perhaps not in this instance but actually the word 'expect' is actually a completely standard bit of clearance terminology & has a very specific meaning, which is:- if you lose comms carry out the instructions that were given after the word expect.

not anywhere I've flown it doesn't.
Expect is used alot, but not in the above context.
If I get "descend FL200, expect FL150 by {some waypoint}", then if I lose comms, I certainly do not descend past FL200.

If i'm given "line up RWY 01, expect immediate" I don't just take off as soon as the rwy is clear if the radio craps out!!

[funfly]

Red light/Green light sounds a really good idea.
P.S. It is very easy to read back ATC instructions 'out of habit' without registering what the ATC has actually said. (although of course, I've never done it myself

[Greg_ATCO]

Wow...I was a bit shocked at that comment!? Never expected 'expect' to be used much... Driver - Your right in saying that you wouldn't just take off if the RWY was clear...But do you not think it would be safer for you to descend to FL 150 at the 'waypoint' if you lose comms? Surely the ATCO would be thinking ahead in giving you instructions for your next move...what if he asked you to do this because there is a risk of you getting to close to another aircraft at FL200?

[dream747]

Inversely, the word 'expect' is probably used by ATC to give the pilot an idea on what would be coming next for them if things go as planned. But if you are not formally cleared to FL150 in this case, wouldn't it be better not to since you're not formally cleared? They need to make sure the situation would turn out as planned before giving further clearances. If not he could have cleared you straight to FL150.

[anotherthing]

Greg ATCO -

757Driver (and Dream747) are 100% correct, Rumble I don't know where you picked up that gem but it's not a safe practice and is totally wrong.

I use the word 'expect' every now and again... for instance if there is a sniffer aircraft flying near EGLL and it is blocking say, FL100 on the stacks I may say "ABC123 Expect FL90 level 10 miles before (stack), descend now FL130".

(The expect level should come first to avoid confusion).

The 'expect' phrase is there to assist pilots in their planning. It's letting them know what you might need them to do in the near future. It is not an instruction to carry out in the event of comms failure - that's what the lost comms procedure is for FFS . Anyone who thinks otherwise needs a thorough LCE check. It basic ATC for goodness sake!

Why do we use it? Well in the example above I may need to get the aircraft down to FL90 to get it under the blocker at FL100 - this will help the EGLL Dir.

I cannot descend to that level at the moment as I have crossing traffic at FL120. Therefore, to let the pilot know what my probable intentions are I use the above phraseology. This means that the pilot knows that he needs to descend at a rate commensurate with him being able to make a further descent to meet the FL90 Level by restriction - if I issue it (and only if).

This helps the pilot, and it helps me because I am less likely to be in the situation of asking the pilot (after clearing the crossing traffic) to descend to FL90 level 10 mile before, only for him to come back and say he is unable to.

Greg - you are correct in 1 sense - The ATCO is thinking ahead by using the "expect" phrase - but it does not mean he will want you to do it... 9 times out of 10 he will; but situations change.

For any ATCO to think that an "expect" phrase becomes an explicit instruction in the event of comms failure is shocking

[Question_Answer]

How about a small set of numeric codes (to be approved by ICAO) that can be read out to complement the rest of the transmission - analagous to what the police use in some parts of the world?

So, for example I suggest that the following 4 would be the primary positive re-inforcement for take off and landing events. (SLF so please forgive lack of authoritative language)

Flight 123 You are Cleared for take-off on runway 27L, Code 333.......
Flight 123 Please wait and hold, Code 666
Flight 123 You are cleared to land on runway 27L.....code 888
All traffic (!) Hold all operations - Code 555

Not suggesting a code for every other possible type of communication (since there would be too many and cause more confusion). Other risk is of course that the code gets confused with the Airline flight number (in which case avoid using specific flight numbers?)!

[Greg_ATCO]

Yeah I understand completely! Just out of interest...how often do you guys experience a comms failure? I would guess not very often??

[anotherthing]

I have just checked out some profiles...

GregATCO

I see you are a mortgage consultant - that and the fact you posed your post in a manner to make it a possible question make it more forgiveable - you may only be trying to understand something you are not trained in.

However:

Rumble

Your profile states you are airline staff - thus not an ATCO. Please desist from posting totally inaccurate and potentially dangerous comments about something you clearly do not understand.

It is one thing to post opinions, it is something else to post wholly inaccurate comments, as fact, on practices that you do not understand.

The way you wrote the post leads people to believe that you are an ATCO. What you wrote shows other ATCOs that you are not... unfortunately pilots might not always be able to tell the difference.

If you are an ATCO - 2 things:

Update your profile.

Volunteer for some remedial training.

Fortunately in this instance both 757_Driver and dream747 'rumbled' you.

[anotherthing]

Greg - we (ATCOs) quite often 'lose' aircraft. By that I mean they are often transferred but then due finger trouble (or more likely, being given the wrong frequnecy), they do not call when we expect them to.

We would then phone the previous controller to ask if they still have it.

Sometimes they have just forgotten to transfer it, other times they have transferred it but somewhere in between it has gone to the wrong frequency.

This is usually resolved quickly (couple of minutes at the most) and is completely safe - the aircraft is a known entity.

Actual total comunications failures are, thankfully few and far between. I know a couple of people who have had them, but I have never experienced it in 19 years - from both sides of the mic.

[plugster]

The first thing I'd do when something is not entirely clear to me (especially t/o and landing clearances) is: just ask again and if the instruction wasn't made in standard phraseology let the atco confirm the last instruction in standard phraseology.

Just my two cents...
Let's see what the investigation reveals.

[757_Driver]

thread drift but...

The "expect" is certainly used to help us plan ahead. For example a common restriction coming up from france into LGW is FL150 by bexil - now this is about 5000 ft below the ideal descent profile, so if the atco just said. "descend FL200" I would descend on my estimated profile to FL200, if he then said as I approached FL200 "descend FL150, and be level BEXIL" we've got no hope unless we chop the wings off.
Therefore he will say "expect FL150 by BEXIL, Descend FL200", this means I can caculate a Top of Descent based on a profile that gets me to BEXIL at FL150. However as stated this makes zero difference to basic ATC principles.

re comms failure.

I fly a clunky old machine which was 'new' in the decade of big hair and bigger red braces in the city and we have 2 VHF radios, 2 HF radios a transponder and any number of mobile phones with which to communicate with the outside world. I think the days of flying around triangles and doing low passes to see a light flashed from the tower are probably behind us!