Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
ManuCH
Posts: 2679
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:33 am

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:08 pm



Quoting Skyman (Reply 44):
This is completely unthinkable in Germany. We are only allowed to issue a landing or departure clearence if there is no aircraft on the RWY.

It's the same in Switzerland. Eventhough I've been issued "HB-XXX, runway about to be vacated, runway 19, cleared to land" a couple of times now, when the airplane vacating the runway had already left and maybe had its tail still sticking onto the runway. Basically the runway was still "legally engaged" but not physically and thus not posing a safety risk.

I guess some flexibility is allowed, but a real "cleared to land" with an engaged runway isn't allowed here. It's hard to tell what method is better, though.

I'm curious about the use of "behind" in the US. In ICAO phraseology, you get things like: "HB-XXX, behind the vacating Saab 2000, backtrack runway 19 behind". Notice the double use of "behind", which was instated after an accident caused by a misunderstanding (can't find it at the moment). How would this be done in the US?
Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
 
skyman
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 5:10 am

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:55 pm



Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 45):
I don't see any problems with that. Your telling me you can't do that in Germany?

Yes not allowed here and not a big problem
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3482
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:46 pm



Quoting Skyman (Reply 51):
Yes not allowed here and not a big problem

Seems to me that 1. it adds quite a bit of unneeded radio chatter and 2. could cause a slight decrease in number of operations that you can run per hour. Granted, from what I know, GA is nowhere near as big over there, due to costs, so it may not be a big issue.

None-the-less, you learn something new every day.


-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
LHR27C
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 3:49 am

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:13 am



Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 52):
Seems to me that 1. it adds quite a bit of unneeded radio chatter and 2. could cause a slight decrease in number of operations that you can run per hour

Radio chatter is probably increased, but on the other hand there is the whole debate about whether you should be "cleared" to land when there could be 2 or 3 other aircraft on approach/taking off ahead of you and the runway is far from clear.

As for operations, given that LGW operates the busiest single runway in the world, under the restriction that only one aircraft has clearance on the runway at any time, I don't think it's true that it decreases the number of movements. It's just a different way of doing things, and I can see advantages and disadvantages of both.
Once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned forever skyward
 
P3Orion
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 10:53 am

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:14 am



Quoting Pihero (Reply 49):
Yes. But people on IFR don't expect to be mixed with "visual" traffic. They expect everybody to be on the same final flight trajectory.

The Expressway Visual RWY 31 is issued to IFR traffic. In the U.S., Visual approaches, which is an IFR clearence, are mixed with ILS approaches all the time.

Quoting ManuCH (Reply 50):
I'm curious about the use of "behind" in the US. In ICAO phraseology, you get things like: "HB-XXX, behind the vacating Saab 2000, backtrack runway 19 behind". Notice the double use of "behind", which was instated after an accident caused by a misunderstanding (can't find it at the moment). How would this be done in the US?

This cannot be done in the U.S. The FAA does not allow conditional clearences.
Baker's 7 year, Carpano Antica, Luxardo, Bittercube cherry bark vanilla bitters
 
User avatar
ManuCH
Posts: 2679
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:33 am

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:19 am



Quoting P3Orion (Reply 54):
Quoting ManuCH (Reply 50):
I'm curious about the use of "behind" in the US. In ICAO phraseology, you get things like: "HB-XXX, behind the vacating Saab 2000, backtrack runway 19 behind". Notice the double use of "behind", which was instated after an accident caused by a misunderstanding (can't find it at the moment). How would this be done in the US?

This cannot be done in the U.S. The FAA does not allow conditional clearences.

Interesting: why no "behind" (conditional clearances) - but then landing clearances while not being #1 are allowed? Where's the difference?
Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
 
P3Orion
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 10:53 am

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:41 pm



Quoting ManuCH (Reply 55):
Interesting: why no "behind" (conditional clearances) - but then landing clearances while not being #1 are allowed? Where's the difference?

The difference is control of the situation remains with the controller when clearing an aircraft to land number two, three, four. With "Behind the landing MD80, position and hold." All control is relinquished to the pilot with very little margin to correct it if the pilot moves behind the wrong aircraft.
Baker's 7 year, Carpano Antica, Luxardo, Bittercube cherry bark vanilla bitters
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:07 pm



Quoting P3Orion (Reply 54):
The Expressway Visual RWY 31 is issued to IFR traffic. In the U.S., Visual approaches, which is an IFR clearance, are mixed with ILS approaches all the time.

Sorry, P3Orion, I didn't make myself clear : In many ways, the procedures aredifferent in the US compared to what we, international aircrews are used to. I never made a value judgment on whether its better or not. My point is that these procedures don't help us lifting the confusion we have with R/T procedures, accents...etc...
To me, the problem is that I can easily identify the position of someone announcing himself "five miles final runway 31", while the "visual Expressway" can't give me any clue on where that particular traffic is.
That's why, as a pilot and flight commander, I have to trust the ATCO to do his job right as I have a very limited SA...which brings me to wishing that the said ATCO will be absolutely clear as to his instructions, to me and the the rest of the guys/girls around.
The incident Glen mentioned about the use of "maintain FL xxx" is an absolute classic and I've heard it many times, too...There is also the habit of acknowledging a below-FL 180 as an altitude, which can at least be a pain in the neck or downright dangerous if the altimeter setting is very different from standard.
Just listen to the tape of the LGA Clearance delivery (from the same NTSB release). There's an airplane acknowledging an "expect FL320 ten minutes after departure" as "thirty ten ten".The controller accepted the read-back as correct...Were clearances not one of the defenses against mid airs in the case of a comm loss ?..etc... etc...
Finally please note that I put the word "visual" conditionally, understanding full well the meaning of "VFR" as opposed to "visual approach".
Contrail designer
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:12 pm



Quoting Flyingbronco05 (Reply 39):
This is the reason I hate flying into Montreal. The controllers are all speaking french so you have no idea what is going on. You call up in English and they will respond in English, then go right back to babbling away in French. I think this is really dangerous, especially on the ground when you have no idea where other planes are or what to be looking for.

This is quite common everywhere else on the earth outside of the United States! At most foreign airports ATC will communicate in English, and the local language of the country. And trust me ... they are NOT babbling.  Smile
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
User avatar
glen
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:43 pm

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:57 pm



Quoting Pihero (Reply 57):
There is also the habit of acknowledging a below-FL 180 as an altitude

Well this is maybe not what we are used to in the rest of the world. But nevertheless it is correct as the Transition Level is FL180 / Transition Altitude 18000 over the whole states. And that's why you may receive two or three times a new QNH during your descend when in contact with a new center or if it changes.
"The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view." - Albert Einstein
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:55 pm



Quoting GLEN (Reply 59):
But nevertheless it is correct as the Transition Level is FL180 / Transition Altitude 18000 over the whole states

Yes, in the US.
Not anywhere else, which was my point.
Contrail designer
 
P3Orion
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 10:53 am

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:53 pm



Quoting GLEN (Reply 59):
And that's why you may receive two or three times a new QNH during your descend when in contact with a new center or if it changes.



Quoting Pihero (Reply 60):
Yes, in the US.
Not anywhere else, which was my point.

Why wouldn't you want the most current/accurate altimeter setting for the sector/airspace you are flying in when you're below FL180?
Baker's 7 year, Carpano Antica, Luxardo, Bittercube cherry bark vanilla bitters
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:25 pm



Quoting P3Orion (Reply 61):
Why wouldn't you want the most current/accurate altimeter setting for the sector/airspace you are flying in when you're below FL180?

Listen.
The transition level around here is FL 50.
Someone is cleared to FL 60, which he acknowledges as 6000 ft. Suppose, as it has happened quite a few times last year that the QNH is 1030 HPa or more. The resulting altitude would be some 500 ft below the cleared / required flight level. Is that safe ?
Heard something like this a few months ago :
ATC : XXX cleared ABB 1A arrival. Descend flight level one five zero and reduce speed to two five zero knots.
XXX : Roger two five zero at one five
ATC ; Negative, XXX, descend flight level one five zero. Reduce speed to two five zero knots.
XXX : Roger XXX down to fifteen thousand and speed two five zero.....
ATC: XXX, your clearance is FLIGHT LEVEL one five zero, standard altimeter setting.
XXX : Roger One five zero.

Did someone mention reducing radio chatter earlier ?
Contrail designer
 
P3Orion
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 10:53 am

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:42 pm



Quoting Pihero (Reply 62):
Listen.
The transition level around here is FL 50.
Someone is cleared to FL 60, which he acknowledges as 6000 ft. Suppose, as it has happened quite a few times last year that the QNH is 1030 HPa or more. The resulting altitude would be some 500 ft below the cleared / required flight level. Is that safe ?

I guess I don't understand the point you are making. It sounds like a number of pilots from Europe have a problem with FAA controllers and our procedures. It does not bother me or offend me, but I'm proud of the job we do at ORD. Is there room for improvement? Yes. But comparing ORD vs. LHR or the FAA vs. Eurocontrol is like apples to oranges. What works here may not be what's best over there and vice versa.
Baker's 7 year, Carpano Antica, Luxardo, Bittercube cherry bark vanilla bitters
 
User avatar
glen
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:43 pm

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:07 pm



Quoting P3Orion (Reply 61):
Why wouldn't you want the most current/accurate altimeter setting for the sector/airspace you are flying in when you're below FL180?

Of course you want it. In the states you need different settings as you cover quite a distance while climbing or descending below FL180. In other countries Transition Altitudes and therefore Transition Level (sometimes not fix, but depending on altimeter setting) are different from airport to airport and depending on surrounding terrain and maybe other factors. They are usually quite low, somewhat 4000-6000 ft AGL. So most of the times you need only the one altimeter setting of your airport for initial climb or final descend.


Quoting Pihero (Reply 57):
Were clearances not one of the defenses against mid airs in the case of a comm loss ?..

Right you are, and not only in case of comm loss. Sometimes it happens, that after the readback of a new cleared Level or a new heading inflight, there might raise up the question in the cockpit if our readback was correct. When asking for confirmation it happens too often that it becomes evident, that our readback was wrong, but ATC never interfered our wrong readback. I can well understand that they are sometimes under pressure and have to think about their next action with another airplane. But the readback is one important line of defense against errors, like level busts etc.
Same is of course true for pilots, and reading back an important ATC-instruction just with "Roger" simply is not professional.
"The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view." - Albert Einstein
 
User avatar
glen
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:43 pm

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:25 pm

Uups, there have been some posts crossing mine.

Quoting P3Orion (Reply 63):
I guess I don't understand the point you are making. It sounds like a number of pilots from Europe have a problem with FAA controllers and our procedures.

Well sure there might be some, But I don't understand Pihero in this way. As far as I understand, he (and that what was the intention of my last post as well) just tried to explain the differences in the rules about altimeter setting (without judging it). Second he was complaining about communication lacking any use of standards; irrespective of the side of the atlantic and irrespective whether you are sitting in a plane or behind a radar console.
Hey, I think we are all talking about the same. And, to come back to the start of this thread, as we are not all native in english language, there seem to be some misunderstandings. Unfortunately, we can't stick to standard phraseology during a discussion...
"The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view." - Albert Einstein
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3482
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:18 pm



Quoting GLEN (Reply 65):
Hey, I think we are all talking about the same. And, to come back to the start of this thread, as we are not all native in english language, there seem to be some misunderstandings. Unfortunately, we can't stick to standard phraseology during a discussion...

Which, is due to the dialect of the English language you were taught/learned. Plus, its a heck of a lot easier to understand inflection in spoken language than written language (IMO). Basically, even if we went to an all standard, all equal ATC procedure around the world, it wouldn't work. The differing dialects have different ways of expressing things. Maybe we are better off just leaving it how it is, and teaching the current system?

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
User avatar
glen
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:43 pm

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:42 pm



Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 66):
Basically, even if we went to an all standard, all equal ATC procedure around the world, it wouldn't work.

Well it wouldn't work perfect, and there would be always misunderstandings, errors and so on. But it would for sure work better than having no standards ore people not sticking to standards.
I have no problem with having different standards like an FAA and an ICAO standard. As a professional one should be able to handle both. But every standard at its place. If you start mixing it can become dangerous. Especially true if you start mixing languages.
"The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view." - Albert Einstein
 
pilotpip
Posts: 2844
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:26 pm

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:48 am



Quoting P3Orion (Reply 37):
How do you propose we work Ground? I see you fly E170's so you must be familiar with the operation. Anyway, I know there are differences in phraseology between Europe and the FAA such as "Line up and wait" versus "Position and hold." Or, here in the U.S., to free up frequency congestion, we'll say "Number three, RJ three mile final, RWY 28 cleared to land." My question is, how vastly different is the phraseology in the U.S. versus Europe/rest of the world?

And once you are familiar, you realize how fantastic they do things up there. It's organized chaos. The problem is that it takes a while to learn the intricacies of individual airports like that. Another favorite is taxiway Dixie at ATL, once you understand why they do it it makes perfect sense. Once you're rolling, you often don't make a radio call. You jump in line behind the 4th MD-80 like they tell you and switch to tower when they tell you because you can't get a word in edgewise.

All I'm saying is that if you're not familiar with the procedure, and the language it makes for a difficult time for all parties involved and that's where standardization is good. LOT comes to mind here. I can never understand a damn word those guys are saying.

If you work up there, I'll see you guys tomorrow.
DMI
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 13837
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Control Tower/Air Traffic Control - Language

Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:13 am



Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 25):
So what that American ATC doesn't conform to ICAO standards. I'd venture to bet there are many, many other FAA related things that don't either. Last time I checked, ICAO was an organization under the control of the UN. So, essentially, its meaningless. When the UN has a suitable military to come and force the FAA to use some goofy language standards, we'll think about changing.

Until such day, deal with it, or don't fly in the US.

Ugly American syndrome strikes again.

In Japan, all ATCOs and pilots are now required to attain ICAO level 4 English proficiency. Do you have any idea how much effort is required for a person to study for and retain such ability in a language so different from their own? Give a little respect where it's due. Is it so much to ask?

I have designed some of the coursework they use in my small consulting business - while most people who did well in high school English can get through with flying colors, individuals who don't have strong background and have existing full time professional careers, families, social lives etc. have to work extremely hard to attain proficiency.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: VMCA787 and 10 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos