Airbus Within 6ft of the Ground nearly 1 mile Short of Runway
It would be an interesting exercise to find out how many aircraft around the world were flying with mis-set altimeters at any one time. Crews failing to change from QNH to STD climbing through TA or vice versa during descent, or simply incorrectly set QNH. Fortunately such errors usually result in nothing more serious than red faces when they are discovered.
A 'European' problem which US pilots are spared is low TAs. Every time a severe low pressure weather system crosses the continent the authorities have to send out Notams reminding pilots about setting altimeters correctly in order to avoid level busts or terrain warning episodes. The irony is that such weather systems invariably bring severe low level turbulence. Concentrating on basic aircraft control might distract crews from re-setting their altimeters when required.
A 'European' problem which US pilots are spared is low TAs. Every time a severe low pressure weather system crosses the continent the authorities have to send out Notams reminding pilots about setting altimeters correctly in order to avoid level busts or terrain warning episodes. The irony is that such weather systems invariably bring severe low level turbulence. Concentrating on basic aircraft control might distract crews from re-setting their altimeters when required.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Coast to Coast...
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some 10 years ago the idea of a European wide 10,000ft Transition Altitude/Level was floating around.
Corrigendum to A-NPA 2012-01 of 28 February 2012 on Harmonised Transition Altitude
The project seems to have stalled. If you ask EASA why, there is no meaningful answer.
Corrigendum to A-NPA 2012-01 of 28 February 2012 on Harmonised Transition Altitude
The project seems to have stalled. If you ask EASA why, there is no meaningful answer.
Harmonised Transition Altitude
In North America, it's 18,000 which gives time for ATC systems to spot a mismatch between cleared altitude and mode C readout. It seems more sensible to me to set the altimeter to ATIS once I receive it, than have an opportunity to forget to do it sometime later.
In North America, it's 18,000 which gives time for ATC systems to spot a mismatch between cleared altitude and mode C readout. It seems more sensible to me to set the altimeter to ATIS once I receive it, than have an opportunity to forget to do it sometime later.
Mode C data are not corrected by the altimeter setting in the cockpit, but adjusted by computer at the ATC facility based on current altimeter setting - therefore the reading that was shown on their screens would be the actual altitude - ergo no excuse for the ATCO to not notice.
I think a solution is to add using a hash of the number. A simple one is to convert to base-26 with A=0, Z=25 for which 1011 => BMX and 1001 => BMN so the callout would be the pressure value followed by the hash. The hash is calculated by the system on the ground that is supplying the reading. The nav system would get both values put in and check the hash for the value against the hash that is supplied. If the number and its hash don't match in the nav system then the entry can be rejected. Alternatively the nav system can generate and display the hash which is read back to be compared by the controller. The advantage of the hash readback is that if the controller misread the value in the first place a readback of the same misread value is avoided.
I know - FAA/CAA = a 10 year study and $20M in investigations, but computationally this is cheap and easily verified.
This sort of addition is what allows the internet and CD/DVDs to function.
I know - FAA/CAA = a 10 year study and $20M in investigations, but computationally this is cheap and easily verified.
This sort of addition is what allows the internet and CD/DVDs to function.
Mentour Pilot has a video on this. Having all communications in English might have helped.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LE98jp11js
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LE98jp11js
Even when English is spoken by ATC, heavy accents can be a problem.
General aviation flying out of Jerez with Swiss friend who was handling comms and seemed to be concurring with ATC, I said that his command of English was better than mine because I could hardly understand a word of what was being said. Neither did I was his reply!
We got to Córdoba without incident.
General aviation flying out of Jerez with Swiss friend who was handling comms and seemed to be concurring with ATC, I said that his command of English was better than mine because I could hardly understand a word of what was being said. Neither did I was his reply!
We got to Córdoba without incident.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: terra firma
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What on earth is it with the French? I flew on contract for Air France back in the day, out of CDG and ORY. The confidence of both pilots and ATC was occasionally misplaced. And it only takes an occasional gross error to have dire consequences.
At the very least, speak English to all, as the Germans, Dutch, and the Nordics do. Nationalism has no place in professional aviation. (Merde!)
At the very least, speak English to all, as the Germans, Dutch, and the Nordics do. Nationalism has no place in professional aviation. (Merde!)
Pegase Driver
Well wrong example, German is also used in all Regional airports , But your point about the fact that nationalism has no place in Aviation is fully correct but it goes both ways.
As to the Mentour Pilot video, excellent as usual ..Thanks for posting it.
As to the Mentour Pilot video, excellent as usual ..Thanks for posting it.
Yesterday I flew across France, due to no other reason than a very thick French accent spoken at Speed c, 3 pilots misheard the next frequency, read it back wrong AND were not corrected by French ATC. This is an increasingly common occurence.
Pegase Driver
Well I am sure he looks in here too , but he mentions a few facts in his video that were not in the BEA report and were not here on PPRuNe either, so he must have good outside sources, but with 850.000 subscribers on his you tube videos and 12.000 members on his forum I guess he has an advantage over us in getting reliable and correct info.
For instance there is a small hint in this video that he knows exactly who the pilots were , we will see when the final report comes out if he was right.
For instance there is a small hint in this video that he knows exactly who the pilots were , we will see when the final report comes out if he was right.
I've been following Mentour Pilot for a couple of years. That was without doubt his best video to date. Very informative - even a non-pilot would understand what happened.
What a sad state of affairs that we still rely on VHF audio transmission of barometric pressure to determine altitude.
Why do we have to input it? Why do we have to cross check it? Is that really the best we can do?
The comments on language astound me.
Repeated assertions that language isn’t code fly in the face of the facts here.
This was a standard transmission of standard information in a standard format.
It absolutely is code and as somebody above said it doesn’t matter the language it could be in Klingon.
It would be more accessible and we would be less likely to get it wrong if we used the same language all day, every day.
Why do we have to input it? Why do we have to cross check it? Is that really the best we can do?
The comments on language astound me.
Repeated assertions that language isn’t code fly in the face of the facts here.
This was a standard transmission of standard information in a standard format.
It absolutely is code and as somebody above said it doesn’t matter the language it could be in Klingon.
It would be more accessible and we would be less likely to get it wrong if we used the same language all day, every day.
Last edited by Bbtengineer; 15th Oct 2022 at 02:59.
Not quite sure what point(s) you are making?
Transmission of QNH by voice is no more primitive than transmission of cleared altitude or heading or speed by voice.
Yes, in theory it could all be done by digital data transmissions, where the cockpit QNH setting simply updates in real time. (Ditto cleared levels, headings and speeds). But we all know that such a system would not be infallible either, and even more cross-checking would be required.
Altitude could be defined by GPS instead of barometric pressure, but like-wise, that would bring other potential problems and traps.
The thing is, we already have a pretty good system for air traffic control and altitude definition. Not infallible either, but very well tested and practised - we all know what to do and how to do it. PM listens to the latest meteorological report and writes it down, including the QNH. When ATC clears the aircraft to an altitude, the QNH is cross-checked with that independently achieved information.
What is starting to happen, I think, is that training is being slimmed down and skies are getting busier, duties are getting longer, and human performance and CRM is suffering, (and not just pilots). The PM in this incident does appear to hesitate on his read-back at one point, so I think he must have suspected that there was a mistake somewhere. But for whatever reason, it was not queried or followed up.
Having instructions transmitted in two languages instead of one, (at a very complicated and busy international airport, no less), prevented all pilots from hearing the QNH given repeatedly to other aircraft, which would have flagged up the error.
Transmission of QNH by voice is no more primitive than transmission of cleared altitude or heading or speed by voice.
Yes, in theory it could all be done by digital data transmissions, where the cockpit QNH setting simply updates in real time. (Ditto cleared levels, headings and speeds). But we all know that such a system would not be infallible either, and even more cross-checking would be required.
Altitude could be defined by GPS instead of barometric pressure, but like-wise, that would bring other potential problems and traps.
The thing is, we already have a pretty good system for air traffic control and altitude definition. Not infallible either, but very well tested and practised - we all know what to do and how to do it. PM listens to the latest meteorological report and writes it down, including the QNH. When ATC clears the aircraft to an altitude, the QNH is cross-checked with that independently achieved information.
What is starting to happen, I think, is that training is being slimmed down and skies are getting busier, duties are getting longer, and human performance and CRM is suffering, (and not just pilots). The PM in this incident does appear to hesitate on his read-back at one point, so I think he must have suspected that there was a mistake somewhere. But for whatever reason, it was not queried or followed up.
Having instructions transmitted in two languages instead of one, (at a very complicated and busy international airport, no less), prevented all pilots from hearing the QNH given repeatedly to other aircraft, which would have flagged up the error.
Not quite sure what point(s) you are making?
Transmission of QNH by voice is no more primitive than transmission of cleared altitude or heading or speed by voice.
Yes, in theory it could all be done by digital data transmissions, where the cockpit QNH setting simply updates in real time. (Ditto cleared levels, headings and speeds). But we all know that such a system would not be infallible either, and even more cross-checking would be required.
Altitude could be defined by GPS instead of barometric pressure, but like-wise, that would bring other potential problems and traps.
The thing is, we already have a pretty good system for air traffic control and altitude definition. Not infallible either, but very well tested and practised - we all know what to do and how to do it. PM listens to the latest meteorological report and writes it down, including the QNH. When ATC clears the aircraft to an altitude, the QNH is cross-checked with that independently achieved information.
What is starting to happen, I think, is that training is being slimmed down and skies are getting busier, duties are getting longer, and human performance and CRM is suffering, (and not just pilots). The PM in this incident does appear to hesitate on his read-back at one point, so I think he must have suspected that there was a mistake somewhere. But for whatever reason, it was not queried or followed up.
Having instructions transmitted in two languages instead of one, (at a very complicated and busy international airport, no less), prevented all pilots from hearing the QNH given repeatedly to other aircraft, which would have flagged up the error.
Transmission of QNH by voice is no more primitive than transmission of cleared altitude or heading or speed by voice.
Yes, in theory it could all be done by digital data transmissions, where the cockpit QNH setting simply updates in real time. (Ditto cleared levels, headings and speeds). But we all know that such a system would not be infallible either, and even more cross-checking would be required.
Altitude could be defined by GPS instead of barometric pressure, but like-wise, that would bring other potential problems and traps.
The thing is, we already have a pretty good system for air traffic control and altitude definition. Not infallible either, but very well tested and practised - we all know what to do and how to do it. PM listens to the latest meteorological report and writes it down, including the QNH. When ATC clears the aircraft to an altitude, the QNH is cross-checked with that independently achieved information.
What is starting to happen, I think, is that training is being slimmed down and skies are getting busier, duties are getting longer, and human performance and CRM is suffering, (and not just pilots). The PM in this incident does appear to hesitate on his read-back at one point, so I think he must have suspected that there was a mistake somewhere. But for whatever reason, it was not queried or followed up.
Having instructions transmitted in two languages instead of one, (at a very complicated and busy international airport, no less), prevented all pilots from hearing the QNH given repeatedly to other aircraft, which would have flagged up the error.
1) I cannot see a reason why we don’t use GPS to cross check the results of QNH.
2) There is no reason to be delivering routine pressure information in two languages.
I am particularly perplexed by point two. A commenter above mentions repeatedly that we need to convey this information in native language.
I can’t see why.
Anyone who can learn to direct or fly a commercial aircraft can learn to deliver or receive this information in English.
We should reserve native language for non-standard scenarios.
This wasn’t one.
Last edited by Bbtengineer; 18th Oct 2022 at 00:55.
Yes, any international airport - especially a large and very busy airport - should use a single language for all ATC communications for solid safety reasons.
CDG has already been the site of a fatality when the wing of an aircraft - cleared to take off in French - killed an English speaking pilot of another aircraft - a situation that could have been realised and prevented had a single language been in operation.
It is madness to allow two languages to control such a high density and busy airport.
As to your point 1, yes, in theory, but as you know; GPS is not infallible either and can be jammed etc. Where is the GPS altitude read-out? is it on the PFD or on a page somewhere in the MCDU? We already have a well practised method to check and cross-check the QNH, and three independent pressure sensing altitude read-outs in the cockpit to cross check between, as well as the ATIS.
The mistake in this case was a mis-translation by ATC of the QNH from one language to another, and the aircraft in question either not following the standard QNH cross-check or not querying it.
CDG has already been the site of a fatality when the wing of an aircraft - cleared to take off in French - killed an English speaking pilot of another aircraft - a situation that could have been realised and prevented had a single language been in operation.
It is madness to allow two languages to control such a high density and busy airport.
As to your point 1, yes, in theory, but as you know; GPS is not infallible either and can be jammed etc. Where is the GPS altitude read-out? is it on the PFD or on a page somewhere in the MCDU? We already have a well practised method to check and cross-check the QNH, and three independent pressure sensing altitude read-outs in the cockpit to cross check between, as well as the ATIS.
The mistake in this case was a mis-translation by ATC of the QNH from one language to another, and the aircraft in question either not following the standard QNH cross-check or not querying it.
The main problem is that QNH measures relative altitude and GPS measures absolute altitude, so the comparison really should be between the rad altimeter and the GPS, but over uneven terrain that rad alt reading isn't going to be so helpful unless the plane has a detailed terrain map to convert the latitude and longitude into an expected distance reading. The one place that QNH and GPS would coincide is on the runway, but then it's too late for circumstances like this.
To be more clear - the difference in altitude detected by the barometric system is dependent on the density of the air, so the comparison is inexact, but it won't matter as the control is based on eventually matching the pressure reported for the runway and the pressure detected by the barometric system. In the air the difference in pressure is a measure of the relative pressure altitude, not the absolute actual difference.
To be more clear - the difference in altitude detected by the barometric system is dependent on the density of the air, so the comparison is inexact, but it won't matter as the control is based on eventually matching the pressure reported for the runway and the pressure detected by the barometric system. In the air the difference in pressure is a measure of the relative pressure altitude, not the absolute actual difference.
Last edited by MechEngr; 18th Oct 2022 at 16:08.