Whilst on subject of ambiguity...why do so many Auzzie controllers insist on using the word "To" when referring to Alt/FL clearances, and yes..I'm a half Pom!
Thought the danger of that chestnut had been discussed years ago..:E
Every country appears to have it's verbal idiosyncrasies!

Long live the synchronized Idiot!:D

Dudeness...horsepoo, AMS are ok, but LHR are far far better, and I'm not a Brit.

BCN is a clusterfcuk and is an accident waiting to happen, its a metaphor for the rest of Spanish ATC, tarring them all with the same brush? yep you betcha.
I feel safer flying into Lagos or CDG than I do going into BCN or MAD.

Whatever you may think about some of the peculiarities of British phraseology, the decision to vary from ICAO standards is almost always based on empirical evidence of misunderstanding or ambiguity. You, as an individual, may think there is no possible way of misunderstanding whether 210 is a heading, level or speed, others with a lesser grasp of the phraseology have mistaken a clearance. Wherever possible data is collected to show that the different phraseology reduces misunderstandings or improves the situation in some way. Spanish is one of the languages in which ICAO publishes its documents. This has nothing to do with the language used for RTF - the standard for RTF is the local language or English on request.

Can't slow to 190 kts?? :ugh:

Only mystery here is how (like the Lan Chile flameout diverting from MAD to VLC)


When did this happen?

Evening of 26th July this year.

The aircraft [A343] with call sign LAN 705 was performing the flight from Frankfurt to Madrid (EDDF-LEMD). According to the analysis of communications provided by Valencia approach Centre, at 21:06 hours, the aircraft declared emergency due to engine 3 loss, landing uneventful at 21:16 hours. The subsequent analysis of information provided by operator revealed that an auto shutdown of engine 3 was produced due to low fuel flow. The aircraft landed with an amount of fuel 57 Kg below the calculated final reserve fuel."

(Source: CIAIAC)

I too am somewhat wary at AMS and CPH, Both sound very slick and competent and almost always are but are also prone to infrequent foul-ups that can really take the wind out of your sails. I've had a few at both destinations and they can be real shockers - all the more surprising as you just aren't expecting full-scale Lagos moments in N Europe. AMS at low level is where I'm most on guard, and especially so in the final stages of vectoring. Anyone else?

And because this is the internet I suppose I have to add the rider that they are not remotely comparable with Spain, despite the fact that I haven't remotely suggested that they are.

Auto shutdown of an engine with more than final reserve fuel available? I think not. More to that than meets the eye.

Far better a single extra word and clarity than a phrase susceptible to misinterpretation, an incorrect read back or worse, a conflict.

It's intended for phrases that contain multiple instructions but for the sake of consistency it is used all the time.

e.g. "Dimbo123, descend flight level 120, turn left heading 110 degrees, speed 220 knots when level".

Which is far clearer than:

"Dimbo123, descend 120, head 110, 220 when level".

Or do you disagree?

Depone, right with you there :ok: if I remember the report on avherald stated that Lan Chile landed with around 2 tons with a final reserve of 2.5 or so ? the problem if I remember is that the fuel was not balanced due to failure to cross-feed at min fuel & the outer one flamed out. Sorry no time to look for the link (must fly) but that is how I remember it.



Curiosity got the better of me, 1300kg in one side 800 in the other , final reserve reqd 2800kg :eek:

Jeez, some of you know-it-all guys really need to go and spend a day at a busy approach facility and get educated! The Brits only seem good because they sound good (speaking in their mother tongue). The truth is that they cock things up too. Ah but it's easy to lay into the foreigners isn't it.

@HT

Are you talking about ATCOS or Pilots?

This event reminds me of a screaming horror of a serious incident about a decade ago at BCN involving an easy 737, lined up to go on 25 as it then was, and a foreign aircraft which landed over the top of it... From hazy recollection, the 'controlladora' lost the plot and cleared the other aircraft to land over the top of the easy, this being the only piece of standard phraseology in several minutes of RTF. Again, use of the local lingo was unhelpful as the non-Spanish speakers had no SA on the Spanish-speaking traffic. The fact that the landing threshold was displaced may have prevented catastrophe, as it provided some miss distance.

I've just tried to find the report on the CIAIAC website, but without joy. Can anyone point to it?

That's a bit a silly comparison, comparing it to non-standard phraseology.

Standard ICAO would be "turn left heading 110". Personally, when I hear the words "turn", "left" & "heading" I don't need the word "degrees" to know this is an instruction to turn the aircraft...

For the rest no complaints on the UK ATC :-)

BCN again...
 

Had to do a go-around in BCN as well 2 years ago,after landing clearance received and another aircraft was still on runway)))

Retiring Virgin Capt gets airborne out of Sydney: "Goodbye Sydney, this is my last time here as I am retiring after this flight, I would like you to know that you are the 2nd best ATC in the world."

Sydney ATC: "Thank you Capt, just out of interest who are the best?"

Retiring Capt: "All of the rest!!"

Been there, done that, worn the t-shirt, Yes the brits make a cock up or two, but I'm just calling it as I see it:ok:

Actually Rvblyky7, it is not. It is real world. Most ATC combine the two styles but the fuller style is commonly heard around the UK and Masstricht too. The use of the word 'degrees' is allowed by ICAO, according to Eurocontrol, and the whole point - if you read the thread - is to put sufficient info in the instructions to avoid misunderstandings. Anybody who isn't either being disingenuous or a 'clever dick' will admit to hearing incorrect read backs on a regular basis, most of which would be avoided through the use of clearer, less ambiguous phraseology.

Better that than the BCN approach to vectoring...

EZY B733 and CSA B734, 1st September 2002.

http://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyr...IN_english.PDF

Scary.

10 years later. . . . did it get any better ?

Another somewhat uncomfortable procedure is allowing taxying aircraft from T2 to pass under the 07L approach on their way to 07R. Because of the displaced threshold this is not seen as a "runway crossing" per-se & you find yourself being flown over by other aircraft@ about 150RA (much as in this incident above). Perhaps the procedures were inspired by this incident :D:D (if it worked OK why not :rolleyes: )

The consequences of a long-lansding /overun on 25R are also not considered either when taxying from T2 to 25R crossing the stop-end of 25L with landing traffic. . . . . it is all fine & good, but just sometimes feels a bit "iffy".
Haven't yet been cleared to taxy that way with a "heavy" using the longer 25L to take-off, that is one clearance I will refuse, as I don't fancy becoming an aluminium RESA.