RYR 'forgot' to get landing clearance!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think most of us are not perfect so errors will be made occasionally. Try to help the person out, not punish him. I have bailed out controllers and they have bailed me out of situations. Out of thousands of landings how many can say never once they didn't have a landing clearance? How many times have you saved a controller by telling him he is causing a conflict so you can not do what he cleared you for?
Our pilots organized golfing tournaments with the LAX and SFO controllers to get to know them with the assistance of our incredibly sexy flight attendants to run the beer carts. Yes, we did get a bit of special treatment in the skies the sky nazis didn't get. United didn't have golf tournaments, we did.
Our pilots organized golfing tournaments with the LAX and SFO controllers to get to know them with the assistance of our incredibly sexy flight attendants to run the beer carts. Yes, we did get a bit of special treatment in the skies the sky nazis didn't get. United didn't have golf tournaments, we did.
Service-x What is wrong with, please confirm, we're cleared to land?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spanish ATC
I have to agree with those above who feel that this also reflects on the political situation inside Spanish ATC.
For some time now Spanish ATC despite being some of the best paid controllers in Europe have been working to rule, you won't get a level change or a direct routing out of them or a visual approach unless it is from about 12 miles so it might as well be the full procedure.
Add to this the anti RYR feeling in Spain that has been encouraged by the media and you get this mole hill made into a mountain.
For some time now Spanish ATC despite being some of the best paid controllers in Europe have been working to rule, you won't get a level change or a direct routing out of them or a visual approach unless it is from about 12 miles so it might as well be the full procedure.
Add to this the anti RYR feeling in Spain that has been encouraged by the media and you get this mole hill made into a mountain.
Last edited by A and C; 19th Mar 2013 at 14:49.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jo90 - I bet Rome approach has been rather active this week! Presumably they are less laid back than Alicante was at the end of a busy day....trust in God, but don't forget your clearance!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Report is here - English version in the Addenda, starting page 107.
Not a particularly impressive investigation by the look of it. The recommendations made appear to miss some obvious holes in the cheese whilst the majority seem to have a bit of a scatter gun appearance focusing on the use of 121.5.
Although the thread has drifted off the specific incident a little, there are one or two simple facts. In Europe, landing without a clearance falls fairly clearly within the scope of mandatory reporting. And, as we all know, reporting is done with the objective of improving safety - not apportioning blame.
Forgetting to get a landing clearance can happen. When I was controlling there were occasions when I thought I'd given the landing clearance and the pilot called to confirm as the aircraft came over the fence - and I'd confirm the clearance, but wonder to myself whether I'd actually transmitted the clearance. It happens, we're human. And incidents like this can help us all to develop SOPs or our own little aide-memoires to help overcome our human weaknesses.
The thing that puzzles me is why (or how) two controllers appear not to have been monitoring their traffic to the extent that neither seems to have had the situational awareness to spot that a fairly fundamental part of their job was actually happening.
Not a particularly impressive investigation by the look of it. The recommendations made appear to miss some obvious holes in the cheese whilst the majority seem to have a bit of a scatter gun appearance focusing on the use of 121.5.
Although the thread has drifted off the specific incident a little, there are one or two simple facts. In Europe, landing without a clearance falls fairly clearly within the scope of mandatory reporting. And, as we all know, reporting is done with the objective of improving safety - not apportioning blame.
Forgetting to get a landing clearance can happen. When I was controlling there were occasions when I thought I'd given the landing clearance and the pilot called to confirm as the aircraft came over the fence - and I'd confirm the clearance, but wonder to myself whether I'd actually transmitted the clearance. It happens, we're human. And incidents like this can help us all to develop SOPs or our own little aide-memoires to help overcome our human weaknesses.
The thing that puzzles me is why (or how) two controllers appear not to have been monitoring their traffic to the extent that neither seems to have had the situational awareness to spot that a fairly fundamental part of their job was actually happening.
As an FO one of the things I REALLY hated, when I wasn't sure what ATC had said and requested "Say again.", was the captain or FE repeating what they THOUGHT ATC had said whilst I was attempting to hear the repeat.
It was something I learnt NOT to do when PIC.
It was something I learnt NOT to do when PIC.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, that happened to us one day leaving MIA. The approach controller cleared us to 6,000 ft and the FO read it back and reset our altitude to 6,000. I said call and verify we are cleared to 6,000 and he said yes he cleared us to 6,000. I made him call and verify as I was shallowing my climb not to pass 5,000 ft as is our normal altitude and he said negative you are cleared to 5,000. He must have been doing arrivals and said 6,000 without realizing he said it. Helping each other keep it safe when someone errs is much nicer than filing a report.
bubbers44, Phew! But easier when you're the boss.
Although, as a 'Mr Nice Guy' captain, (wife and a couple of other troublemakers would dispute) I've had a couple of punchy FOs who had to be spoken to
I still think it was better to be 'Mr Nice Guy' and have the (very odd) FO think he could try it on than discourage a genuine anxiety being expressed. Some may call me underconfidant but I quite liked an experienced FO upon whom I could rely to draw my attention to an error.
When I was chucking a Chippy, JP or Jungmann around the sky; no, I didn't want someone telling me I was being silly - despite the fact that they may, on occasion, have been correct
Although, as a 'Mr Nice Guy' captain, (wife and a couple of other troublemakers would dispute) I've had a couple of punchy FOs who had to be spoken to
I still think it was better to be 'Mr Nice Guy' and have the (very odd) FO think he could try it on than discourage a genuine anxiety being expressed. Some may call me underconfidant but I quite liked an experienced FO upon whom I could rely to draw my attention to an error.
When I was chucking a Chippy, JP or Jungmann around the sky; no, I didn't want someone telling me I was being silly - despite the fact that they may, on occasion, have been correct
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Cote d'Azur
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Torque Tonight:
Your argument makes sense and I'm in agreement with reducing distractions such as 121.5, especially where lesser ATCs feel constrained to issue incessant chatter as we pass 3 mile final.
However regarding the 1 in 1000000: caution is recommended when squaring probabilities - the resulting huge numbers can be misleading in post-incident analysis. It's not unlikely the other guy will miss the call too, not because of mere chance but due to the same environmental factors, distractions, impractical SOPs, groupthink, whatever, that are affecting you in the first place.
It's not meant a critique of your point to say that pilots should be vigilant about having to "take the blame" because of overly simple probability theory - the kind that the insurance company is most likely to deploy in its favour!
The Sally Clark case offers salutary food for thought.
Errors are human nature. Say 1 in 1000 times you mishear, misunderstand, forget the clearance, but the guy in the other seat rectifies your error. This will be the 1 in 1000000 where both pilots missed the call (or lack of it) simultaneously...
However regarding the 1 in 1000000: caution is recommended when squaring probabilities - the resulting huge numbers can be misleading in post-incident analysis. It's not unlikely the other guy will miss the call too, not because of mere chance but due to the same environmental factors, distractions, impractical SOPs, groupthink, whatever, that are affecting you in the first place.
It's not meant a critique of your point to say that pilots should be vigilant about having to "take the blame" because of overly simple probability theory - the kind that the insurance company is most likely to deploy in its favour!
The Sally Clark case offers salutary food for thought.
Last edited by justanotherflyer; 23rd Mar 2013 at 16:52.
