Pilot and ATC misunderstandings
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Africa
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot and ATC misunderstandings
An interesting occurence/incident happened to me recently flying a BE 20 single crew.
There is a little switch underneath the radio stack which slaves the flight director to either the captain or copilots side HDG bug. I overlooked this switch in my cockpit setup, with interesting results.....
On departure the SID calls for straight ahead to 3miles then a left turn to hdg 330. After taking off i engaged the autopilot and the aircraft started to turn, much to my bemusement. As I disengaged the autopilot to hand fly the correct heading, ATC calls me and says "maintain runway heading" in a slightly scolding tone. I took this as a rebuke for not sticking to the assigned runway heading on the SID, and continued to fly the departure with my tail between my legs. At 3 miles I turned left hdg 330 as per the SID, and on reaching the heading ATC says "say your hdg", to which I replied "330". ATC says " I told you to maintain runway heading " and so I then turned back onto runway heading feeling like a complete idiot. Only later did i realise the HDG mode was following the bug on the copilots side.
Luckily there was no conflict with other traffic but I just thought to myself how 2 people (me and ATC) whos first language is english can have an error in communication like that, imagine the difficulties faced by non english speakers.
Any thoughts /comments?? (Yes i will check that little switch under the radio stack next time...)
There is a little switch underneath the radio stack which slaves the flight director to either the captain or copilots side HDG bug. I overlooked this switch in my cockpit setup, with interesting results.....
On departure the SID calls for straight ahead to 3miles then a left turn to hdg 330. After taking off i engaged the autopilot and the aircraft started to turn, much to my bemusement. As I disengaged the autopilot to hand fly the correct heading, ATC calls me and says "maintain runway heading" in a slightly scolding tone. I took this as a rebuke for not sticking to the assigned runway heading on the SID, and continued to fly the departure with my tail between my legs. At 3 miles I turned left hdg 330 as per the SID, and on reaching the heading ATC says "say your hdg", to which I replied "330". ATC says " I told you to maintain runway heading " and so I then turned back onto runway heading feeling like a complete idiot. Only later did i realise the HDG mode was following the bug on the copilots side.
Luckily there was no conflict with other traffic but I just thought to myself how 2 people (me and ATC) whos first language is english can have an error in communication like that, imagine the difficulties faced by non english speakers.
Any thoughts /comments?? (Yes i will check that little switch under the radio stack next time...)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where was the error in communication?
Without wishing to appear too critical (such open honesty and critical evaluation of our own performance is what makes us professionals), ATC's subsequent instruction to "maintain runway heading" is correct standard phraseology and such a clearance supercedes a the previous SID clearance.
It seems that perhaps the error made was solely on your part, in assuming that an instruction to maintain rwy hdg was a 'rebuke', rather than a valid ATC instruction.
Well done for monitoring those automatics and taking appropriate action when they were not behaving as expected - failure to do that has killed many people before now. Has an impact on the workload, though, eh?
I don't understand how the hdg bug slaving affected the outcome of the situation, other than to cause you workload issues early in the departure. I've never flown the BE20.
Without wishing to appear too critical (such open honesty and critical evaluation of our own performance is what makes us professionals), ATC's subsequent instruction to "maintain runway heading" is correct standard phraseology and such a clearance supercedes a the previous SID clearance.
It seems that perhaps the error made was solely on your part, in assuming that an instruction to maintain rwy hdg was a 'rebuke', rather than a valid ATC instruction.
Well done for monitoring those automatics and taking appropriate action when they were not behaving as expected - failure to do that has killed many people before now. Has an impact on the workload, though, eh?
I don't understand how the hdg bug slaving affected the outcome of the situation, other than to cause you workload issues early in the departure. I've never flown the BE20.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capster,
interesting post, thank you.
I agree that the reclearance may have sounded confusing as I would normally expect to hear "maintain runway heading" prior to take-off, but once airborne and on a SID, I am usually recleared with a "maintain heading XXXXX". This prevents the mis-understanding you experienced.
FB
interesting post, thank you.
I agree that the reclearance may have sounded confusing as I would normally expect to hear "maintain runway heading" prior to take-off, but once airborne and on a SID, I am usually recleared with a "maintain heading XXXXX". This prevents the mis-understanding you experienced.
FB
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Betelgeuse
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My first post! How about that!
I agree with Gary and would add the words of the old maxim:
"Don't assume - CHECK!!"
Of course, there are ways for an ATCO to minimise confusion by adding things like "Maintain runway heading until advised" or words to that effect. However, very often, additional phrases like that are not standard phraseology and therefore may not be used, so if you are not sure, ask the controller.
Finally, if it was me going to give you a rebuke, believe me, you would know it!
"Don't assume - CHECK!!"
Of course, there are ways for an ATCO to minimise confusion by adding things like "Maintain runway heading until advised" or words to that effect. However, very often, additional phrases like that are not standard phraseology and therefore may not be used, so if you are not sure, ask the controller.
Finally, if it was me going to give you a rebuke, believe me, you would know it!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was initially in agreement with Gary Lager's remarks until I re-read capster's original post. I believe that there was a miscommunication between Pilot and ATC.
capster took off with an assigned SID, and, due to the reasons given, deviated from it. How then, does one interpret ATC's instruction to "maintain runway heading" in a slightly scolding tone.
One interpretation (aided and abetted by the scolding tone) is a reminder to maintain the SID, which required Runway Heading to be maintained at that stage. The other interpration is that the "maintain runway heading" instruction was a newly assigned clearance, in lieu of the SID.
If the instruction had been "Cancel SID, maintain runway heading", there would have been no doubt, but in the form issued, there were two possible interpretations.
A mis-communication indeed
(and a refreshingly honest pilot report, may there be many more)
Regards,
Old Smokey
capster took off with an assigned SID, and, due to the reasons given, deviated from it. How then, does one interpret ATC's instruction to "maintain runway heading" in a slightly scolding tone.
One interpretation (aided and abetted by the scolding tone) is a reminder to maintain the SID, which required Runway Heading to be maintained at that stage. The other interpration is that the "maintain runway heading" instruction was a newly assigned clearance, in lieu of the SID.
If the instruction had been "Cancel SID, maintain runway heading", there would have been no doubt, but in the form issued, there were two possible interpretations.
A mis-communication indeed
(and a refreshingly honest pilot report, may there be many more) Regards,
Old Smokey
Are you sure ATC said "MAINTAIN runway heading"? It should have been "CONTINUE runway heading". Only altitudes/flight levels are "maintained". And yes, once the instruction to continue a heading is given, that cancels all previous heading instructions including the SID, and you continue that heading until otherwise instructed.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the Dog house
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with OS, and that to avoid any ambiguity, the term Cancel SID could have been used. After all, once you'r airborne not only are you flying a specified track but you are maintaining a minimum climb gradient. If ATC cancel or take you off a SID after departure they are basically vectoring you and therefore assume responsibility for terrrain clearance ( not allowed below MSA) ; so, if a revised deparure heading is required from ATC it should have been planned for and the term cancel SID passed before, and separate from, the take off clearance, along with new departure instructions. At least this is the case in Oz. I appreciate that this isnt the case world wide. And thereby lies a potential problem of miscommunication/ muisunderstanding. This is not standard ICAO as ICAO dont promulgate words to this effect in either DOC 4444 (ATM) or DOC 9432 ( Man of telephony). Its a National procedure. On the other hand Continue Heading is ICAO and appears to be widely used. When considering just the use of actual RT, if ATC told me to Continue or Maintain I would have understood their intent, but would have also queried the instruction due to the considerations outlined above.
DogGone
DogGone
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ???
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BurglarsDog - If ATC cancel or take you off a SID after departure they are basically vectoring you and therefore assume responsibility for terrrain clearance ( not allowed below MSA)
Actually it is allowed below MSA.. its not allowed below Minimum Vector Altitude.
Actually it is allowed below MSA.. its not allowed below Minimum Vector Altitude.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avman is correct about maintain/continue.
Back to this issue; did the tower controller have any way of knowing that the aircraft had deviated from the sid due to the original 'set up' up error? If they didn't have radar/visual contact/DFTI/ATM, or comms with somebody who did, they would never have known.
It is more likely that the aircraft got airborne, tower passed the a/b time to the ACC or APP and were given a re-clearance of runway heading; In the tower controllers haste to re-clear the dep before the sid turn, they put some kind of infliction in their voice (subconsciously) to indicate the urgency. However, Joe pilot had made a simple error, which they were hastily correcting but were expecting a minor rebuke. The arrival of the re-clearance and the expected rebuke unfortunately arrived together, I guess you could call it a trap.
How to avoid it in the future;In my experience, controllers speak with a very literal meaning and purpose. What they say is what they mean, phraseology has evolved over 60+ years to mean what it should. Follow the instruction as an instruction, unless it endangers your aircraft. Facial expressions, raised eyebrows and tones of voice lose their meaning on RT like a joke about somebodies mother on an email. Sadly to have the best RT interpretation you should developthe skills of the mildly autistic, but this is unlikely to get you many friends on the flight deck.
Back to this issue; did the tower controller have any way of knowing that the aircraft had deviated from the sid due to the original 'set up' up error? If they didn't have radar/visual contact/DFTI/ATM, or comms with somebody who did, they would never have known.
It is more likely that the aircraft got airborne, tower passed the a/b time to the ACC or APP and were given a re-clearance of runway heading; In the tower controllers haste to re-clear the dep before the sid turn, they put some kind of infliction in their voice (subconsciously) to indicate the urgency. However, Joe pilot had made a simple error, which they were hastily correcting but were expecting a minor rebuke. The arrival of the re-clearance and the expected rebuke unfortunately arrived together, I guess you could call it a trap.
How to avoid it in the future;In my experience, controllers speak with a very literal meaning and purpose. What they say is what they mean, phraseology has evolved over 60+ years to mean what it should. Follow the instruction as an instruction, unless it endangers your aircraft. Facial expressions, raised eyebrows and tones of voice lose their meaning on RT like a joke about somebodies mother on an email. Sadly to have the best RT interpretation you should developthe skills of the mildly autistic, but this is unlikely to get you many friends on the flight deck.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that there was a miscommunication. More and more places are using RNAV arrivals and departures, which are highly complex and often tax the crews and challenge our automation's ability to handle what is requested of it.
Case in point: Atlanta, USA, RNAV departures require flying runway heading (regardless of wind) until reaching the first fix. I know of several crews who have either been sharply rebuked over the radio for making early turns to a fix (via automation, which tends to cut corners) and/or have been given the dreaded phone number.
If given the instructions Capster was given, I may have assumed ATC was barking at me about not being on runway heading as the SID requires. My policy is "when in doubt, ask." This policy, however, looks better on paper than it sometimes works in real life. Sometimes it is really busy or there is a confusion about what was actually said.
I don't know how it is in other places, but in the US, where I do most of my flying, if you read something back incorrectly, the controller is not liable; you are
!
Consider the following scenario on the way into PIT just the other day:
"XXX1234, cross XXXX at 10000, 250 knots" Almost immediately followed with, "proceed to XXXX, the outer marker for Runway 28L, descend and maintain 10000."
My reply: "Do you still need the 250 speed when we reach 10000."
Reply (in a very flustered tone): "Look, just go to XXXX," then spoke to another aircraft.
I asked: "Please clarify, now you want us to proceed to XXXX, and slow to 250 there?"
The reply (in a very condescending tone): "XXX 1234, proceed to YYY, the outer marker for 28L, descend and maintain 7000, and for your information, you will have to slow to 250 to descend below 10000,STAND BY FOR YOUR READBACK."
Well, we got through it without committing any violations, but I do challenge the notion that ALL controllers are straightforward guys who really do have our best interests in mind.
Case in point: Atlanta, USA, RNAV departures require flying runway heading (regardless of wind) until reaching the first fix. I know of several crews who have either been sharply rebuked over the radio for making early turns to a fix (via automation, which tends to cut corners) and/or have been given the dreaded phone number.
If given the instructions Capster was given, I may have assumed ATC was barking at me about not being on runway heading as the SID requires. My policy is "when in doubt, ask." This policy, however, looks better on paper than it sometimes works in real life. Sometimes it is really busy or there is a confusion about what was actually said.
I don't know how it is in other places, but in the US, where I do most of my flying, if you read something back incorrectly, the controller is not liable; you are
!Consider the following scenario on the way into PIT just the other day:
"XXX1234, cross XXXX at 10000, 250 knots" Almost immediately followed with, "proceed to XXXX, the outer marker for Runway 28L, descend and maintain 10000."
My reply: "Do you still need the 250 speed when we reach 10000."
Reply (in a very flustered tone): "Look, just go to XXXX," then spoke to another aircraft.
I asked: "Please clarify, now you want us to proceed to XXXX, and slow to 250 there?"
The reply (in a very condescending tone): "XXX 1234, proceed to YYY, the outer marker for 28L, descend and maintain 7000, and for your information, you will have to slow to 250 to descend below 10000,STAND BY FOR YOUR READBACK."
Well, we got through it without committing any violations, but I do challenge the notion that ALL controllers are straightforward guys who really do have our best interests in mind.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some of the confusion here seems to come from meaning of continue runway heading and fly straight ahead. runway heading is a vector, you fly the 'heading' of the runway centreline just as you do any other heading issued by ATC whilst straight ahead means that you track the extended centreline (easier if there's a localiser I guess!). In the former case ATC will worry about wind in the latter the pilot has to.
If we go back to the original question
The SIDs that I have worked with have almost always described tracks to be followed (the exception being those which included a heading for a short distance after departure before turning to intercept a track).
If capster's recollection of events is correct, ATC's instruction to continue runway heading sounds like it was a revision to the previous clearance (the SID). The business about whether ATC can or should do this below MVA is a different matter entirely......
If we go back to the original question
On departure the SID calls for straight ahead to 3miles then a left turn to hdg 330. After taking off i engaged the autopilot and the aircraft started to turn, much to my bemusement. As I disengaged the autopilot to hand fly the correct heading, ATC calls me and says "maintain runway heading" in a slightly scolding tone. I took this as a rebuke for not sticking to the assigned runway heading on the SID, and continued to fly the departure with my tail between my legs. At 3 miles I turned left hdg 330 as per the SID, and on reaching the heading ATC says "say your hdg", to which I replied "330". ATC says " I told you to maintain runway heading " and so I then turned back onto runway heading feeling like a complete idiot. Only later did i realise the HDG mode was following the bug on the copilots side.
If capster's recollection of events is correct, ATC's instruction to continue runway heading sounds like it was a revision to the previous clearance (the SID). The business about whether ATC can or should do this below MVA is a different matter entirely......
