I don't want to pass comment on who is better, however:

Why do the USA not adopt ICAO standards? They work. Nearly everybody else in the world does so with minor variations.

When I used to fly to the USA we were briefed on US RT and we would adhere to it, not just as a courtesy but as a legal and safety requirement.

Why do the Americans not do the same when flying into the rest of the world? Surely the US wide body guys and girls fly into the "rest of the world" often enough that learning the ICAO standard would be a requirement and easily achieved just by listening to what everybody else does.

How about it? What relevance have you posted there?

Usually those who want to compare numbers are compensating for something, old man.

Well the OP seemed to be bragging about the "immense number of airplanes" Frankfurt handles and con-pilot was just pointing out they don't come close to the volume of several US airports.

Clear?

Given the title of this thread is "...North American ATC" , how are Canada and Mexico performing?

Is it excess verbiage the American controllers use that is the significant difference? As well, Canada, Mexico and the U.S.A. have significant differences in their airspace structures that ICAO has no say in.

Why doesn't ICAO adopt American standards?

I suggest the OP chose FFM and SFO as they handle a similar number of flights and are, therefore, a good pair to compare relative abilities.

To introduce ORD is irrelevant.

And yet "After the landing traffic line up and wait" is OK?

The FAA does publish their differences from the ICAO standards in the Aeronautical Information Publication.

Going metric would be a good first step, but our conservatives would go berserk- I mean more berserk. Plus it would rob us of totally cool opportunities like the Gimli Glider. Though this is a 750 ml bottle. What's up with that?

So? Americans also invented the airplane and airlines but now the average US carrier's customer service would rank amongst the worst in the world.

And how rude, non-standardised and full of slang is their ATC? Example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWOOKQlEe5s

As I read this thread, the topic is American vs. Euro Air Traffic Control procedures/phraseology at high-density international airports. NOT who invented what NOR airline customer service ratings. Gawd awful thread drift. Flown in to Madrid, Athens or Paris as a PILOT lately? Your comments as a PILOT would be welcome..

LHR ATC is great.


FRA also does a nice job.


The U.S. controllers should give the foreign carriers a little break. I hear them rattle off clearances to foreign carriers and it's too much info for a non-native speaker.


And some of the foreign carriers need to up their standards in the U.S. It's more crowded and faster paced. Nothing like having a visual to LAX 24R overshoot the entire airport while turning from downwind/base. We deviated 1.5 nm left of 25L centerline, leveled off, and watched the 747 slide by 1300'(1700'?...report had the exact distance) laterally at our 2 o'clock position. Passengers on the right side of the a/c during deplaning - "that guy on the right looked really close." "Oh, he didn't look really close, he WAS really close."


Fly up the East Coast of the U.S., Washington Center in NYC, on a weather day. Probably the busiest air corridor in the world. Seven major airports - IAD, DCA, BWI, PHL, EWR, LGA and JFK, all in about 200 nm.
And that's not counting the over flight traffic heading towards BOS, or coming NE from CLT or ATL, of MEM/DFW NE towards Europe.


Sorry, but nothing overseas compares to the demands of the U.S. ATC system. I wonder why it's not less RT intensive but it is what it is.

It's easy to be a hero in your own backyard.

If I could choose, I would prefer the calm ATC style of LHR, to the stressful, rapid fire ATC in some areas in the US. Incidently, the only place I had (two) real TCAS RAs, was in NY airspace.

The only place I have encountered rude ATC was in DXB.

And then we could get rid of ICAO altogether...:E
But why doesn't the US (and the UK) adopt the metric standard, then?

Was the controller an American?

I don't think so. One of the ground controllers.
This was a few years ago.

Dear qUadform,


may you not forget the most important thing..When we go to another country, we are the `guest` there , so we need to follow those rules and procedures, whatever they are..Right ??..When you go visit your next door neighbour, you are not (I hope) lecturing them about what to do in their own house..


I also have flown in all of those areas you mentioned, for several years, and hold different licenses from different parts of the world, inluding the FAA..And I respectfully disagree with your post..I find the controllers and the ATC system in North America very good and professional..No doubts about that..Yes, it is a bit different than elsewhere, but as a pilot our english should be good enough to be able to handle it..The US has their ways, we got ours..That´s it..


Fly safe !!

A major difference that no-one in the thread has yet raised is that in Europe flight within Terminal Airspaces (TMA) of major airports is mandatory IFR. In the US airports usually run VFR, when the airspace becomes IMC and traffic is required to fly IFR the capacity of the US airports reduces sometimes significantly.

The practice of clearing an aircraft to land well before it can be guaranteed that the runway is clear for that aircraft to make a landing is not easy to accept by those who would normally only provide a formal landing clearance when the runway is allocated solely to the landing aircraft. Providing a clearance to land earlier is passing a controller's responsibility to the pilot. Yes the clearance can be withdrawn, but only if communications do not fail. So provision of early landing clearance before the runway is actually clear, puts the system into a fail dangerous rather than a fail safe state. In the US this is accepted, as is allowing passenger aircraft to land without a clearance as happened with the famous DCA sleeping controller.

This is just 'a difference' in approach (pun intended). It works, like all things, until it doesn't.

Get 'em to quit speaking french to Air France on CDG tower frequency.

Then we'll talk about american controllers.....

The argument that early landing clearances reduce congestion is utter fallacy. The aircraft still takes the same time to make the approach and the RT transmissions still take the same time. It is purely an evasion of responsibility and an abdication of work effort by the controllers, and it is as shameful as it is dangerous. Likewise the inability to standardise RTF within a single airport, nevermind align with ICAO standards.

That much said, landing on the wrong runway is the pilot's responsibility unless ATC gave a wrong designation, which was not the case here. Further, US ATC is not alone in its issues - Spanish ATC has a well earned reputation, and Italian ATC (and airport management) is not up to much either (also has a habit of poor communication and putting all responsibility onto pilots out of pure laziness, like in the Linate accident).

I have said it before - ICAO needs teeth to enforce standardised regulations globally, meaning the Russians and Chinese fly in feet, the US drop inches of mercury, the Iranians, Russians and Chinese start measuring winds in knots and everybody starts talking comprehensibly. We, as aviation professionals, are all supposed to be on the same side!

[QUOTE][/How is it that an airport such as Frankfurt which handles an immense number of airplanes in often sub-par weather, can be so much more professional and efficient than let's say, San Francisco....even on a clear day

The answer has more to do with airport geometry than atc abilities. San Francsco's parrallel runway pairs are too closely located to run simultaneous operations unless aircraft are put on visual approaches. As an ATCO it is MUCH easier and more efficient to run prarallel ils approaches to widely spaced runways. Also FRA airport geometry does not have intersecting runways so departures are merely separated from each other vs having to space them with arrival traffic.

Fleet mix and scheduling also play tremendous amoount to efficiency. I would add that the proximty of OAK to SFO probably affects its a ability to use dispersal headings on deaprtures which would greatly improve efficiency assuming there was no conflicting arrival traffic, which ther always is.

Efficiency gains are complex and to assume that US airline industry would leave them on the table is niave. Nowadays airlines make runway decisions based solely on efficiency and as long as the weather parameters do not exceed the op specs of the aircraft that is what is expected of the ATC system.