Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Another US ATC stuff up

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Another US ATC stuff up

Old 9th Sep 2023, 06:38
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: britain
Posts: 693
Received 9 Likes on 9 Posts
Another US ATC stuff up

bean is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2023, 08:27
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: NL
Posts: 594
Received 295 Likes on 99 Posts
Oh dear, what a damning header to use. The one question not answered at this point was whether the American was given the wrong SID or whether he misunderstood and set up the wrong one. Let's wait and see shall we. For the rest, IMHO ATC handled the situation quite well considering.
FUMR is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2023, 09:29
  #3 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,740
Received 21 Likes on 12 Posts
Yep, I also liked the way the controller refused to discuss the incident on the frequency., not always easy to do so. Well done.. For the incident it would be interesting to see the original flight plan filed and listen to the read back of IFR pre departure clearance on Ground.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2023, 09:34
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,905
Received 442 Likes on 268 Posts
so many flights, so many people - its a wonder there aren't more TBH
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2023, 10:38
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: britain
Posts: 693
Received 9 Likes on 9 Posts
No avoiding action given to either aircraft. More non standard phraseology. At an airport like PHX
clearances would normally be delivered by datalink
bean is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2023, 12:00
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
An observation on USA departures or at least PHX in this case. RWY 25R and 26 both have a BROAK 1 departure. LIDO labels them both the same. As opposed to European airfields where SIDs with the same name are given differentiators LHR 09R MODMI 1J. KUSA doesn’t give runway only SID. Is there a potential cross check missing here to ensure correct runway and SID?
bylgw is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2023, 12:09
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lander, WY, USA
Posts: 292
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Flightaware shows that flight assigned the FORPE1 SID, but can't tell what was given as clearance delivery.
AA1388 (AAL1388) American Airlines Flight Tracking and History 07-Aug-2023 (KPHX-KJFK) - FlightAware
340drvr is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2023, 13:12
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: britain
Posts: 693
Received 9 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by 340drvr
Flightaware shows that flight assigned the FORPE1 SID, but can't tell what was given as clearance delivery.
AA1388 (AAL1388) American Airlines Flight Tracking and History 07-Aug-2023 (KPHX-KJFK) - FlightAware
Interesting; thanks
bean is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2023, 13:47
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by bylgw
An observation on USA departures or at least PHX in this case. RWY 25R and 26 both have a BROAK 1 departure. LIDO labels them both the same. As opposed to European airfields where SIDs with the same name are given differentiators LHR 09R MODMI 1J. KUSA doesn’t give runway only SID. Is there a potential cross check missing here to ensure correct runway and SID?
When headed NE, almost certainly 25R will be the BROAK while 26 will be the FORPE. Many departures in the US only serve certain runways so it's easy to catch a departure mistake in the case of a runway change, but as you noted that unfortunately isn't the case here. It's possible they were offered or requested 26 while taxiing, after being all set for a 25R departure on the BROAK1 (it's a shorter taxi for AA). I'm curious if that happened here, and since they clearly were planning to fly the BROAK, they either missed the departure change or ATC missed giving the change to them. As you said, maybe the solution is to pull 26 from the BROAK and 25R from the FORPE - that would have alerted the crew to a potential issue.
biigD is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2023, 14:01
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 36
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CPDLC runway changes, reroutes, SIDS

A runway change or route clearance change will not cue up the new SID in my FMC, as noted above, if valid for the runway. You have to change it manually, so it becomes an error to trap with procedure and verification drills. As above, the surest fix is not sharing SID names on runway combinations that can cross routing.

AAL checked in stating the SID (the wrong one) but that didn't seem to allow departure ATC to vector AAL north and leave SWA unmolested.

Might be the best practice to move the guys doing it correctly, when able and then fix the blundering later, like an ILS PRM breakout

I don't think this was an ATC issue. If changed runways or routes and not ready- make time. #1 position to the runway means you are ready unless you speak up.
moosepileit is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2023, 14:07
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by moosepileit
A runway change or route clearance change will not cue up the new SID in my FMC.
No, but if you change the runway in the FMS and the prior SID no longer applies, the SID will drop out and the crew alerted as such. Not having the BROAK or FORPE serve both the north and south runways would provide an additional barrier, regardless if the error was on the crew or ATC's end.
biigD is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2023, 15:21
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes on 24 Posts
7110.65 5-8-2d states “When conducting simultaneous parallel runway departures utilizing RNAV SIDs, advise aircraft of the initial fix/waypoint on the RNAV route.
PHRASEOLOGY−RNAV to (fix/waypoint), RUNWAY (number), CLEARED FOR TAKEOFF.”

Not surprisingly, the initial waypoints for BROAK and FORPE are different.

This type of ATC takeoff clearance is routinely used at airports such as ATL and LAX.

Why not in this incident?
BFSGrad is online now  
Old 9th Sep 2023, 15:56
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 36
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Excellent point, not all US/FAA ATC Tower controllers complu

Originally Posted by BFSGrad
7110.65 5-8-2d states “When conducting simultaneous parallel runway departures utilizing RNAV SIDs, advise aircraft of the initial fix/waypoint on the RNAV route.
PHRASEOLOGY−RNAV to (fix/waypoint), RUNWAY (number), CLEARED FOR TAKEOFF.”

Not surprisingly, the initial waypoints for BROAK and FORPE are different.

This type of ATC takeoff clearance is routinely used at airports such as ATL and LAX.

Why not in this incident?
That's an excellent point, ATC is not fully excused and this is far too commonplace.
moosepileit is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2023, 16:26
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
By default a SID is named after the place it ultimately goes TO not any intermediate point. Some same-name SIDS execute a 180 turn to their ultimate waypoint via a left turn, whilst some turn to the right. Some SIDS of the same name have different stop-altitudes which I myself have fallen foul of. Basically, giving different SIDS the same generic name when they do very different things is a recipe for disaster that could easily be designed out.

Getting a SID and onward route without a runway from KUSA and then blindly inserting it into the FMC is not a process that is foolproof. The SID might infer a certain runway but controllers are very fond of tactically changing runway as you taxy out which may change whole ball-game (and is a nightmare on the 787 with it's FMC/EFB perf process.) Distractions are very unwelcome.

It is practice at many eastern US airfields to report the first significant RNAV waypoint on the expected departure when acknowledging the take-off clearance. This should bowl out any possibility of turning in an unexpected direction after take-off but the practice seems confined only to certain airfields. Maybe the FAA need to revisit the practice. More importantly, change the practice of naming different SIDS with the same generic name. If you throw enough traps in front of me, sooner or later, no matter how carefully I tread, I am going to fall into one of them.
Magplug is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.