Have I read the comments correctly? An abysmal lack of airmanship leads to a very close brush and it turns into a "why the US is so much smarter" thread! Given the number of runway excursions, landings on incorrect runways and airports that occur Stateside and cock ups many Americans make around the rest of the world and at home (ATC to visiting aircraft) due to sloppy RT, please explain why they are seen as the higher standard. As many said, 2000' isn't a FL anywhere, and even then it's irrelevant to the discussion. A clearance to FL200 cannot be interpreted as 2000' by anyone competent, so what the hell has this got to do with nationalities?

AS

Its not got to do with nationalities. Cockups occur in CAT as well as in Private as well as with ATC. As far as I have seen there is no safety benefits over FAA or EASA statistically only harmonisation between the two systems reduces the chance of mistakes

I fail to understand why ATC knowing something was wrong with the understanding of the clearance then recleared the aircraft to FL300 from FL200?

Surely they should have said " Climb immediately to 6000 feet (or whatever) on 1002 (or whatever) Read back
Their reaction was to reclear the aircraft from FL200 to FL300 which hardly indicates anything wrong or urgent

Pace

How do you ever get cleared to a flight level?

All over the place hence a standardisation over Europe is much needed

It could be the very reason that they were not used to FLs at low level that they used that terminology incorrectly

Pace

Pace

This was a CAT flight. I agree though (and I fly for a UK AOC on a Hawker in addition to a bit of 'private' BizJet flying in the same type) that private operators generally have very high standards, often better than AOC operators. Don't think that the majority are cowboys...

ATC cleared them to FL300 and expedite. They were trying to salvage the situation, probably understanding the problem.

No excuse for not being aware of MSA or local procedures. Even if it was their first trip across the pond, you'd think that their company would have a briefing sheet for Europe and the North Atlantic that they would read. I'll guarantee that they've sat through a Simcom, FSI or CAE International Procedures course. If they'd have listened, maybe this wouldn't have happened.

Worrying. Even more worrying is that the crew were self admittedly confused as to the cleared level, and didn't ask....

Aluminium shuffler, I wasn't suggesting things in the USA were better, in fact, having flown, there some things are worse (please don't jump down my throat, everyone). The fact is we can always improve air safety by progressively removing those things that incline people more likely to make mistakes. And a uniform Transition Altitude, in my opinion, would help.

"Our altitude climb instruction was "climb level Two Hundred". We read back the clearance and began the departure. As we began to climb we had some confusion as to what the altitude clearance limit was as we were unsure what level Two Hundred meant. We levelled at Two Thousand feet to ensure we didn't exceed any altitude limits.

The correct time to solve that conundrum was before the wheels left the ground; i.e. during the read back.

Did confusion set in because one of the waypoints was 020?

Sorry to shout, but

IF IN DOUBT, CHECK.

If we are ever in doubt about, or mishear a clearance, we must ask for clarification.

I do this and I don't mind if it makes me seem stupid; it's a hell of a lot less stupid than flying into a hill.

I live in Kerry and am well aware of the terrain surrounding the airport. Standing at the airport, many of the mountains are either in full view or partly shrouded in cloud depending on the day. Taken in conjunction with the heights and spot heights on the charts,it should have been blindingly obvious that the mountains are higher than 2000ft in close proximity to the departure end of 26 on a direct track to VENER.

Judging from the statement in the report that the Kerry controller told the Shannon low level controller that "he's just gone into cloud there now", in conjuction with the diagram of the departure, again it should have been blindingly obvious that the mountain tops exceeded the bottom of the clouds which were at circa 2000 feet.

Regardless of any confusion over the delivery of the cleared height, there is a clear lack of planning and situational awareness evidenced in the report.

Equally as worrying is the delay in installing and implementing the operationof ATM equipment in Kerry tower. Unfortunately this is a cultural thing here with examples of projects, both public and private, in many fields of everyday life being started in response to a need and then delayed time after time for no explicable reason.

Yup, no matter how many 'looks' you get from the captain or, in the past, smartass comments from other crew, don't even ask "Should I clarify that?" JDI!

I bet the mic problem got them out of understanding mode into just get it back to them mode.

Porterhouse, a NA pilot would use FL terminology below FL180 in Europe where the transition altitude is as low as 2,000 feet in some locations.

In NA you only get cleared to a Flight Level if operating above 18,000 feet.

From there ATC will nominate the lowest useable flight level based on the local altimeter setting. FL180 for 29.92 and above, FL190 for 29.91 - 28.92, and FL200 for anything below 28.91.

This is why I see part of what this incident crew did wrong. They're used to hearing a Flight Level as being much, much higher. Then they read that a Flight Level can start as low as 2,000 feet in Europe and suddenly they are confused by a clearance.

What they should have done above all else is to slow their process down. Maybe they did check the MSA but in the flurry of everything else, they forgot. Maybe one of them did read somewhere that they could expect to hear "Flight Level Two Hundred," but then forgot what that means. Maybe, just maybe, they put their trust into the controller who (seemingly to the crew) gave them a clearance to below the MSA and below the local transition altitude. But not knowing all the local regulations, they accepted it...then, when being questioned about what altitude they were at, they read the clearance back as it made sense to them, with a quick jab across the cockpit to say "but here that means this." From there, the spiral began.

Frankly, I'm surprised at the number of "super pilots" who obviously have never read back a clearance wrong, have never forgotten the MSA, or who accepted a clearance without fully understanding it. I guess these "sky gods" all work in a part of the industry where they either never leave home or always fly to the same destinations.

I remember my charter flying well; and I remember being utterly confused and bewildered some of the time by the flow of new information I was suddenly expected to be an expert on. Perhaps that's why I'm willing to throw these guys a bone and say that, while it was a serious mistake with fatal implications that I personally would have clarified before leaving the ground, I understand why they did it and it in no way makes them less of a pilot than I.

What amazes me, is that I either overread the info on previous flights/sleep patterns/time acclimate to local time or it is not in the report...

THIS is EXACTLY the fukc up one expects when you are out of your comfort zone fatigue wise. Of course, thats just my opinion, however...

The broken mic will certainly not have helped to create a, say, comfortable atmosphere.

And +TSRA is right, the amount of info can overwhelm one, especially in types without APU.

Together with the ever increasing BS "they" (e.g. Eurocontrol and local ATC provider) throw at one (CTOTs, TOBT etc.etc.), this is an accident waiting to happen (not saying it has anything to do with this one...)

We all make mistakes in the heat of the moment! In most cases it's nothing! no big deal just slap each others wrists in other cases that mistake can be very serious or even fatal

Private jets or CAT EASA or FAA we all do it

I remember that Ryanair operated 737 landing at the disused military airfield next to Londonderry an airfield I flew to a lot at that time.

How could both Crew on a RyanAir operated 737 mistake the two airfields ?

Having made an identification mistake to then carry on to a landing on a disused runway with two crew and loads of visual cues was hard to get my head around! But it happened. If it had been a private jet there would be cries of cowboy pilots

All the passengers had to be bussed out and across to the active airport and the aircraft removed empty after the runway had been cleaned and inspected

Pace

The same everywhere. You missed my point - How would you get cleared to a flight level if you weren't allowed to ever mention flight level below the TA?

It was however, tongue in cheek.

Regardless of the circumstances in this case why cant the EU who mandate what size a cucumber must be can come up with a standard transition level ?{as in Canada, F/L 180, which puts the aircraft above the big rocks} some of the transition levels are simply too low given the rate of climb/descent of many aircraft in service in this day and age, it also prevents the QFE holdouts from trying to remove the top 300 feet of the local lumps. {Well not all the time, but it does reduce the chances of hitting a grain elevator as done by a certain exchange pilot a few years back}

Totally agree, We have the Alps and FL180 would be a good starting point. It is ridiculous that there is so much variation.
There was talk from EASA of having a standard transition level then it died a death :ugh:

Pace

Dear Pace. Please get your facts right. The incident you refer to at Ballykelly in 2006 was not operated by Ryanair. They had subbed the flight to Eirjet who operated an A320, not a B738. I am not a fan of RYR but I do take issue with your derisory comments of their crew without bothering to check the facts.

So he talked about Ryan instead of Eirjet, and 320 instead of a 737.

The point he was trying to make was a different one and you know that.

If I were a pompous git, I´d say I take issue with that.

But I´m not.

This is a whole catalogue of 'gotchas', that fortunately, everyone walked away from.
I don't know what plates the crew were looking at prior to departure, but the transition altitude at EIKY is 5000'. On all the cockpit-trips I was privileged to do during 30 years as an operational ATCO, I'm fairly certain TA was mentioned as part of the pre take-off briefing, conducted by the crews. Was this a single-pilot operation? The report makes references to 'the crew'.
If I remember correctly, the 'FL One hundred' phraseology was brought in in the U.K. FIR due to the frequent confusion between FL100 and FL110.
It can be argued that similar confusion is unlikely between FL200 and FL210/300 and 310, etc.
The proposal for a harmonised EASA Europe-wide, transition altitude is also interesting. There is no doubt that some form of 'standardisation' is required. In the U.K. FIRs, we have TA's of 5000, 6000, or 3000', depending on where you are.
My own personal preference would be a TA of 6000' across the UK/Ireland FAB. OK, it doesn't align with the terrain in the rest of the EASA/SESAR region, but if you're flying over the U.K. or Eire, the highest thing you'll be likely to hit is Ben Nevis, at 4414' AMSL.
One of the problems with introducing an 18,000 transition altitude in the UK and Eire is the frequent occurence of steep horizontal pressure gradients, which are related to our position on the edge of a North Atlantic continental land-mass. Descending from FL 200 the QNH at the transition point could easily be 4mb/HPas different from that at the destination airfield. i believe the Met Office have suggested upwards of 40 altimeter-setting-regions, (ASRs), would be required. If 'climate-change' predictions are to be believed, such steep pressure-gradients will become more frequent in the years ahead.
Safe flying Y'all, and as has been already said..."If in doubt, just ask". Anything which prevents 'form-filling' is good news, no matter which side of the mic you're on.

Operated by was not clear I meant subcontracted by so I stand corrected as I do on the aircraft Type A320

Derisory comment on the Crew? I was making a point that we all make stupid mistakes private, CAT, EU reg or FAA. Most of us get away with it but some at the wrong point can have serious or very embarrassing consequences.

I made that comparison as had this been an FAA reg business jet no doubt there would be derisory comments on FAA cowboy pilots

Even with two crew at close quarters neither noticed and instigated a go around ?

As they had no charts for this disused runway and had no clue where they were landing it was lucky that it was well long enough for them

if Eire Jet were subbed by Ryan air to do the flight there is still a responsibility to meet the standards required ?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4857962.stm

https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...-DIJ_01-07.pdf

Pace

That's fair. But these are guys who are used to the term "Flight Level" to mean everything above 18,000'. They're then sent to a location where that term may mean anything down to 5,000' in a (wide) geographic area of the world where it can be as low as 2,000'. Then they hear a clearance they've never heard before ("Flight Level Two Hundred") and it is easy to see how they could confuse that to mean 2,000' instead of 20,000'.

No, it is not easy to understand for me since it one insists on this flight-level "mania" 2000 feet would be flight level twenty, not two hundred. I can't see how you can hear two hundred and translate it in your mind into ... twenty. Also, if they never heard 200 versus 2-0-0 (big deal!!), had slightest doubt they could have asked for clarification, actually it was their duty to do so. These pilots should be grounded and sent for some retraining.

Give me a break. Grounded and retraining? So you've never once made a bonehead mistake? Well, I guess in that case you are one of those way better pilots than I. Anyone who makes a mistake in this industry should be shown the door I suppose.

Guys: KISS. You are sitting on the ground, warm & cosy. You receive a clearance to leap into the unknown with confusion in your mind. Your warm cosy feeling is disturbed. What would you do? Take a leap of faith that it'll be alright on the night and you'll sort it out with ATC later; or pause, consider and ask again? Then you can leap off and still feel warm & cosy knowing exactly what you re going to do. Let's not use too much energy trying to find excuses for why FL 200 was mistaken for 2000' once airborne. That is too late to be confused.

It would be interesting to know the weather at the time of flight? Did he enter low scud cloud and was on top at 2000 and hence visual with terrain or in between cloud and visual? Or was he at 2000 and solid IMC ?
If he was visual and levelled temporally to get clarity incase ATC had wanted him to stop at 2000 but he could see the mountains that is different to blindly levelling at 2000 in IMC with a CFIT potential.
From this it looks like he took LEVEL as to be LEVEL not FL On ATC realising he was level at 2000 feet they then give a strange clearance to climb Flight level 300 from level 200 hardly a terrain avoidance clearance? itself a confusing response instead of expedite climb immediately to XYZ feet on 1002 (or whatever) read back with maybe a terrain warning ?

Historically there was confusion over Level with pilots saying " Level at FL270 ( example) and that was changed to " maintaining FL270" so as not to confuse the two and that appears the case in this situation where wrongly the pilot took LEVEL as to be LEVEL

Pace

Pace, the METARs. AAIU says the aircraft departed at 1535Z.

EIKY 161630Z 25009KT 220V290 9999 FEW013 BKN021 18/15 Q1023=

EIKY 161600Z 23011KT 9999 SCT015 BKN025 18/15 Q1024=

EIKY 161530Z 19007KT 160V260 9999 SCT017 BKN024 18/15 Q1024=

EIKY 161500Z NIL=

EIKY 161430Z 20007KT 170V240 9999 FEW016 BKN018 OVC024 17/14 Q1024=

EIKY 161400Z 23008KT 9999 SCT016 BKN021 17/14 Q1024=

So it appears that at 2000 feet he was below broken cloud and in good visibility with maybe some scattered below and hence visual with the terrain ahead but once climbing into cloud would be on an unknown climb profile re terrain having delayed the climb

If they had been instructed to maintain a lower altitude, that would have been said as such - European ATC units do not ask someone to maintain level at an altitude. That is a poor excuse.

I agree that harmonising EU transition altitudes would be nice, but the explanation about needing a ridiculous amount of ASRs to cover the wildly differing QNHs makes sense - I had never heard that explanation before and it seems entirely logical. All the same, a 6000' TA across Europe must be "doable". I still can't see how uncertainty over TA could be an issue in this incident - if cleared to a FL, then you know you're going up reasonably high, much more than 2000', and nobody would stop at 2000' out of EIKY if they had any situational awareness.

I think we can all be thankful for the controller who realised that the pilot was out of his depth because he stated 'cleared to Flight Level 300' and told the PIC to expedite his climb through 4500 feet because otherwise, with all likelihood, the PIC would have levelled off at 3000 feet and smacked into the terrain around the airport......

Having said that, the mind still boggles how ANYONE, irrespective of where they fly, can confuse Flight Level 200 with 2000 feet...... Even if flight levels begin at 18.000 feet in the US, surely he'd have received clearance to Flight Level 240 or similar before and understand that Flight Level 200 and 240 are 4000 feet apart, not 22.000?

I don't find the crew's explanation satisfactory. How can anyone think level 200 means 2000ft? Utter nonsense! Even if they are utterly confused about TA and have no idea what a flight level is. If they thought it was fl200 they should know what that is, if it was an altitude it would be 200ft - which would clearly need to be challenged. Do they also think 2+2=5?

RAT, I agree 100% - this is where the error chain started.

I am very confused as to how because it was said FL 2-0-0 rather than FL 200 they understandably thought this meant 2000ft?! I know I had a socialist education and may be missing something, but to me FL200 looks remarkably like FL200.

Seems any excuses will be made once it's established the pilots are from a certain perfect nation. How different this thread would be if the pilots were from somewhere further towards where the sunrises. Of course one contributer assured us the pilot couldn't possibly be American :rolleyes:

And I fully agree with whoever suggested some retraining is in order. Is that not the positive safety culture in action? Don't fire them but probably a good idea to make sure they don't play hide and seek in the hills below MSA again.

For what it is worth in this debate, I have recently had to take up sim training when my medical went sarfff....and I am quite frequently picking younger guys up after I have cleared them to FL60 when they check in "climbing 6000". Altimetry and strict adherance to its conventions was drummed into me in the air force but, clearly, similar emphasis is being missed somewhere along the way. You simply have to be an absolute pedant when it comes to altimetry.....

My recollection is that the FAA mandated the completion of an international procedures course before pilots involved in commercial operations could fly internationally; is that not the case for part 135?

1. Why no observation of TA on departure? Part of brief surely?

2. QNH should have been set on standby until passing the latter of TA or MSA.

3. Looks like SA was very thin on the ground.

4. Believing of clearance to be a FL below TA?

5. Sloppy altimeter setting procedures coupled with poor SOP's.

6. No error trap.

7. Luckily no one died in the process.

To many pilots call passing FL..... climbing FL..... on hand over when still below transition. The correct read back should be passing altitude until you are above the transition using your standby altimeter for reference, a lack of understanding? As for the issue and read back of flight levels, using the terminology "FL Two Zero Zero", "FL Three Zero Zero" etc. is not without confusion. The simple use FL200/ FL300 surely safeguards against this? Why do some pilots feel the need for a Europe wide TA? Surely any transition altitude should form part of your pre departure brief serving to increase awareness of your SSA on departure.

Incorrect altimetry procedures and the potential threats of, require robust SOP's and subsequent adherence to them to mitigate the risk. Its seems that this was not observed on the day. Or maybe there was a genuine lack of understanding by the PIC?

Say nothing but give them a TCAS or EGPWS alert. That might wake them up.

Agree about RT pedantry. Many folk seem to think it is 'flashy' or clever to abbreviate RT phraseology, but they completely fail to understand that on a bandwidth limited VHF radio link, with atmospheric interference and less than perfect broadcast quality microphones; What you might say into your microphone does not come out perfectly in the headphones of the person receiving. Also, 'your' abbreviation might be completely misunderstood by the person receiving, so it is really important to only use approved and correct phrases.

Embarrasing as it can seem - we have surely all been there - if you cannot understand a clearance due to a bad microphone or different accent or whatever, please check and clarify. In this case, if the crew had simply asked (on the ground) "Just to clarify; are you clearing us to Altitude 2000 feet or Flight level 2 zero zero?" it would have easily resolved the issue. There can be no shame in double checking in aviation.

From thee report, as written by the pilot, it seems that they were not under the impression that FL200 would represent 2.000 ft, but they were unsure what their cleared level was and temporarirly levelled off at 2.000 ft to get clarification first. Of course, levelling of below MSA, IF not in VMC, was not a wise decision. Subsequently there was confusion in the communication with the controller, where the controller probably expected the "flying level" would mean that the aircraft had reached its assigned level. This communication mix up prolonged the undesirable situation of flying below MSA.
It is unclear whether the unsure feeling about the cleared level existed on the ground, or whether the pilot(s) had a brain fart once airborne?

That's a very generous reading of the situation.

There's really no question in my mind but that they felt that FL200 represented 2,000 feet and thus they were level at their clearance.

Edit: Never mind the fact that they did not ask for clarification.