Ha ha,

i still don't have a clue to be honest even with the addition of no one likes you. You mentioned in a post from Dec 06 that you were flightdeck but got involved in CC recruitment. Was that a slight fib on your part.

Rgds.

Funny old thing.


There I was, along with many others on here who start a normal discussion involving a perceived flight safety issue and now it turns out it was ' just a good old wind up'. Well blow me down with a feather. I thought for a minute it might have involved peoples lives so i'll step down from my sanctimonious high horse and stick with Jet Blast. That's where the real jokes are, eh? Why does that always seem to happen when somebody finally realises the majority view is against them.


Come on out to the Middle East Mr. Monarch Man. Face saving has been perfected off to a fine art out here! You'll fit in just great. :suspect:

That would require me to have a face or credibilty to begin with!

You can keep the mideast, as it happens EK turned me down, something
to do with poor R/T standards and a lack of airmanship.

Sorry Khaosai, I though by CC you meant Company Council, my mistake.

Hi BYMONEK,

don't think he will get through one of your CRM courses though !.

Rgds.

Are people still discussing this issue?

...And add circuit direction
 

APE got it right!

Wonder what Monarch Man would make of a Mil Airfield that told him to join 24 right HAND?

And, come to think of it, how would he handle VFR circuit joining instructions to a parallel runway situation (if the mil ever got a place with parallels!) “join, 24 Right, right hand, QFE etc”.

On another thought; picture the scene with a 24L, right hand!:eek:

For the avoidance of doubt, I am being mischievous. :E

If he doesn't work for Monarch, he doesn't have to worry.

If he does work for Monarch, he knows how good the IT Department is, so either way, he's unlikely to be worried!

from MM,
Phraseology is not the big safety net people seem to be convinced of
Odd use of english I know; however, every little helps and correct phraseology can help avoid confusion which on the whole can't be bad thing.

Nor can a little refresher every now and then, just to remind oneself what correct phraseology is (it does change sometimes.)

Not necessarily so, ZeBedie. As long as there is even a faint chance that 'Monarch Man' does actually work for that airline, as a prudent, cautious SLF I am obliged to ensure that my family, friends and co-workers (all of whom I value highly) avoid flying with Monarch. No doubt Monarch's lawyers would enjoy talking to 'Monarch Man' or his representatives regarding his use of their name, and his apparent delight in dragging their name into disrepute.

This really is getting pathetic. Keep going guys. I reckon less than 24 hours to getting this thread shut down with all that anonymous bravado. I'm sure Monarch are really worried that some anonymous PPruner is not going to fly with them because of his paranoia over someones user name. :rolleyes:

You reckon, Cargo Boy? A quick trawl of El Reg throws up:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10...blog_grounded/

along with a variety of similar stories.

Personally I find MM's "refuse to stop digging until I have to use the wind-up defence" attitude scary enough. We don't have standard RT in paragliding but even there people have learnt that sloppiness literally kills. Anyone with even the remotest understanding of how the brain works can see through the "there's only one ILS" argument in a split second.

Wake up a bit guys....you are dealing with a wind-up merchant.

For your info, since June 2006 when this "Monarch Man" registered, there is not one single entry in the private monarch forum from this character....which with a mouth as large as his, is somewhat unusual is it not?

This thread is ridiculous and I'm suprised it hasn't been locked by now as you all plainly aren't interested in the topic title - just tit for tat one-upmanships.

Grow up guys.
:ugh:

Given MM seems to be on here every two minutes, I doubt whether he is even a pilot, certainly can't fly much.
If he is with MON, then it does make you think twice about booking to fly with his outfit.

Man Tower
 

Quote:
As of 7th July 2007, Manchester Airport's runway assignments will be changed in relation to the Magnetic Compass bearings. The current headings for the runways are 054° and 234° with assignments 06L/24R and 06R/24L respectively (11/1/07). The new runway changes will mean the new assignments will be 05L/23R and 05R/23L respectively.

Guess dummies & toys will really get thrown out of the pram when this is implemented:{

Tower "Cowboy 555 cleared to cross 23Right at Golf one and hold at Victor one"

Cowboy 555 "OK"

Tower "Cowboy 555 please read back your crossing clearance"

Cowboy 555 "No, stop being petty"

Tower ":mad: "!!!

I just remembered why I stopped looking at this form..... I wonder what on earth posessed me to come back ?

If you do get some leave or time off to reflect on your standards of CRM, you may wish to look at the following link: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF

Happy bedtime reading!:ugh:

Unfortunately too many posters on this thread appear to miss the point of someone playing the devils advocate and really do appear to take some of it too seriously. It also appears to me that a lot of those that are getting quite upset on this thread are, but not exclusively so, not professional pilots or ATC people.

In view of the amount of upset that the interdiction by non-professionals has had on a few of the more easily upset professionals, I think that it is probably time to put this thread to bed. Having operated in and out of Manchester for well over ten years, all I can say is that they are a fine bunch of controllers and always enjoyed expeditious arrivals when arriving from the west. If they've decided to have a crackdown on non standard or irregular RT then good luck to them. It never hurts to be reminded from time to time about the correct way to say something.

Why so many on here should get so upset about it though, I have no idea. Is it only me that has noticed a marked improvement from some of the US carriers pilots that operate into MAN in their RT? Perhaps all that repetition until they get it right does work after all.

Before I make a final decision on whether this thread really should close, perhaps some of the pedants who have taken so much umbrage on here should spend a bit more time in the USA at the busiest airports and listen to how they manage to move so much heavy metal around without them all coming into physical contact with each other or falling out of the sky. I'm not condoning the fact that there is a definite lack of standardisation in the USA but some posters on here would have us believe that the perfectionism that they crave when it comes to RT must be observed by everyone else or else there will be a big disaster. It just ain't so. :rolleyes:

Just a quick minor hijack:
CAP413: "Runway 24R cleared to land c/s".
Back to topic... Personally, as a GA wannabe doing ATPL groundschool, I've got enough time in my life to add a runway designator if required.

Speaking as an individual who is in reality, a bit of a pragmatist, a student of flight safety, and on a personal level, someone with a passion for getting things right, I feel an explanation for my position is required.

First and foremost, I will happily hold my hand up and say that I have deliberately played the devils advocate. The thread topic in itself had already elicited some emotive responses before I contributed, and along the way I made various representations from a personal perspective. Again however I must reiterate that these are personal opinions and not the position of the company that bears part of my user name.

There are those of you on here that have been particularly vitriolic in your condemnation of my comments, I can only conclude that whilst your views are in contravention of mine, they have served to highlight certain common misconceptions of the processes that we utilize to improve flight safety, and as a general observation, miss the opportunity to view "bigger picture".

Danny eloquently makes his point, you may not think that certain area's are open for debate, but if you close your mind to the fact that we can learn from other methods and ideas, then we are consigning ourselves to mediocrity.

Who says we do things in the UK better and safer than anywhere else?

That is my final contribution to this thread, and I have to say I am disappointed by several posters on here who chose to send me personally insulting private messages.

thanks
 

thanks for the comment and the site
the voice of reason
graham en-route egcc
any probs with our service mail me

What? Seriously, WHAT? I don't believe this. Is this not the point we were all trying to make to you in the last seven pages? Oh my.......:{

And as for:

I doubt announcing that the CAA have got it all wrong and shouldn't require "right" or "left" or "degrees" or whatever else, is not a indicative of a misconception then.......@#*%$£"£ :mad: !

It is the last post of someone who has realised his only defense is retreat. Terribly disappointing really. I was just getting into it.

DANNY, PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD. IT WILL SAVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THE BACK INJURIES RELATING TO THE NEED TO STOOP TO THIS RIDICULOUSLY LOW LEVEL IN ORDER TO MAKE OURSELVES UNDERSTOOD. And as for professional or non-professional, what has that actually got to do with anything? I though anyone could post here. It is uneducated input that can sometimes make for good debate. Please don't put the amatuer contingent off!!!

JFK ground confusion audio recording
 

A very confused day @ KJFK...

http://home.online.no/~chainly/JFKGround.mp3

That sounds fairly normal for JFK. A bit of confusion but the ground controller gets it all sorted out. No real bollockings, just a good sense of humour and repartee.

If you think that's bad, you should see it at night, in the rain if it all goes wrong! :eek:

I've merged the above post into this thread to try and give some perspective to the discussion. For those of you who are not familiar with some of the busiest US airports but feel so strongly about correct phraseology, you should look at the airport diagram and try and follow the radio exchanges in the post above. Remember that at least 3 and probably all four runways are active and in use.

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0701/00610AD.PDF

Enjoy. It's quite amusing but at the same time, if you've ever operated into JFK then you'll appreciate problem that this ground controller had to sort out.

Radar?
 

As a student of Aerospace engineering who's had some ATM and Avionics stuff, I have little practical experience. Therefore perhaps an obvious question...
Wouldn't mode s + multilateration help a bit? You know, having a screen of the airport layout with all the A/C blips+names... I don't know the JFK system setup and layout, so I stand by to be educated some more.
Very enjoyable listen any way you listen to it :)

Lovely bit of chaos at JFK. It sort of sounds like the ATC equivalent of the part of pilot training dealing with recovery from unusual attitudes - set up the field in a weird manner and let the controller sort it out.

Well, Danny, from an ATC point of view this JFK ground guy makes a bit of a mess of it, No ? and frankly he gets away with it because it is JFK , and it is busy.

I perticularly like the remarks to the IBERIA A340-600: " you're unable to do everything with that plane of yours " :E , but if a FRA Ground operator ( no controllers in there ) was telling that to a LH crew, he probably will get some problems (The German sense of humor is not extending that far..)

Back to the original thread, the point I disagreed about ( and still do ) is that by bullocking a Controller for following the rules, you do not improve safety, quite the contrary in fact.
That was my point, and God knows I am not an R/T Ayatollah , and miss the good old days when it was not so busy and we had a bit of humor on the R/T.

Just to drag this back to Magplug's original post:

Is it REALLY such a hardship to readback the runway designator on your landing clearance? If you were landing at Schipol i'm sure you'd have no problem in doing so.... why is MAN any different?

If it's a requirement of the ATC unit that the clearance is readback, the controller has every right to make sure you read it back.

Runway incursions
 

Really interesting to read many of the posts on this issue, especially from those who appear to be well placed in understanding how serious incidents and accidents come about.:confused:
Not applying standard phraseologies may not be the sole cause in such an event, but has occurred frequently enough to be worthy of a mention in comprehensive studies such as here; http://www.eurocontrol.int/runwaysaf...eanAction.html That is, they are one (often large) hole in the Swiss cheese model. Line a couple more and bingo!:eek:
To suggest that MAN has a procedure for one runway that should be considered outside the scope of globally acceptable procedures being applied to ALL parallel runways (wether active or not, day night or otherwise) would lead us to a matrix of procedures being different for all those airports that have some quirks that differ from the norm. Now wouldn’t that be lovely.:=
Think about the poor sod who flies in just once in a blue moon, and how does he cope with these differences. Time for some to get out and smell the roses – not always smelling pretty when sh1tz are trumps and you’re holding a handful!:{

I worked it out. Monarch Man could land twice a day at MAN, five days a week, 48 weeks a year, and it would take three years, nine months and two weeks before the number of times he said the word "Right" equaled the number of words he's written about not having to say "Right".
I may be a sad barsteward for working that out - but I feel like a sadder barsteward for having read it all...

"I worked it out. Monarch Man could land twice a day at MAN, five days a week, 48 weeks a year, and it would take three years, nine months and two weeks before the number of times he said the word "Right" equaled the number of words he's written about not having to say "Right"."

....Brilliant. :D Well said!

Well, MAN ground was not at its best this very morning...
KLM med emergency (hope the gal/guy made it ok as the ambulance took ages to arrive...),
1001 (including ours) aircraft asking for pushback / taxi all at the same time,
merely made the slot,

Just one thing to do, stay :cool:

MM, (not that I'm expecting a reply)
Sorry, I must have missed the debate you were talking about. I, and anyone else, be they ATCOs or drivers, who cares about flight safety would be willing to debate the merits or otherwise of rules and procedures. That's how one changes them. Contravening them (or encouraging others to do so) in the first place is not how to go about it.

Never fear Gonzo MM is here:D

Was the point I was making.

The whole L or R is a red herring, but I was more than happy to stoke the fire, so many "experts" on here rose to the bait, from uncle tom in his ratty C152, to seasoned ATCO's so in fact, I'd say I have actively encouraged debate, and helped some form opinions.
However, because my opinion and experience suggests to me that in UK airspace we rely far too much on phraseology, and neglect many many other area's that comprise the sum total of the concept commonly referred to as airmanship...does not make me a cowboy, or one who likes to live outside the rules.
So Gonzo, debate away.

The reason I have refrained from posting until now has been due to a few rather nasty personal messages recieved.

as I see it, this thread was started by self-loving pilot, who has no respect for procedures on the other side of the mike. why don't you ommit your cockpit chit-chats then (namely check-lists and such), you must know them by heart by now!

I'm still not sure that what you started was a debate.

I'd imagine someone who wanted to start a debate would be asking questions such as....

Why do we use the phraseology we do?
Why are we so reliant on standard phraseology?
Is there anything we can use to supplement it?

And one might also put forwards one's own point of view......

I believe it's naive to rely on standard R/T, because......
Here's what I'd like to see done.....etc etc.
.....such as.......

I'm all for improving 'airmanship', I see good and bad examples of that every day I'm at work. A few things worry me. I cannot communicate with flight crew by using 'airmanship'. I only have my voice, and when I'm talking to a crew from Azerbijan, or China, or the Peruvian State Flight, I use standard phraseology because some of these crew will only know maybe fifty words of standard aviation English.

Why is it such a bad thing if we use standard R/T and encourage/train good airmanship at the same time? I don't want to start thinking "Ahh, a British crew, I can just talk normally to them, but the next one's a Turkish, so I'll have to use standard phraseology to him...."

If you are involved in an 'incident' or god forbid an 'accident' and you are no longer around to tell the tale (or even if you are), the fact that you may not have used correct ATC phraseology could be used to hang the 'PILOT ERROR' tag on you by the Press, the Company you have worked so loyally for or the AAIB.
Nice for the industry, your colleages and your family..:uhoh: .

Always read back what is said to you:ok: cover your arse and the arses of your crew:)

I have read a lot of comments from people who say things like,
"ive been in this job for years" and "ive made more landings than youve had hot dinners" and other smart ar*e comments.

EXPERIENCE and COMPETENCE are two totally separate qualities.

I read the aaib reports at work and some of the things that pilots do that land them in bother really amaze me. I know of 2 particular fatal accidents, both involving light aircraft, which have left my colleagues and I asking "why on earth did they do that?"

In both examples, the comments in local newspapers etc all have words such as "he had been flying for 35 years and was very experienced".

Only by the grace of god, these sort of guys manage to bimble along all these years without killing themselves or others.

Experience is a double edged sword. It is invaluable in the hands of a competent pilot, but deadly when exercised by an incompetent.

Reminded of words from an instructor many years ago "Good judgement comes from experience, mainly bad."
Why not do this in the accepted, standard way, not the way you want it to be - and nobody gets P'ed off with you, your blood pressure doesn't go through the roof and there's less waste of bandwidth;)