Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 27, 2016, 01:21:57 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: Check out: Air Race Classic 2016


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  "where in God's name are you going?"
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: "where in God's name are you going?"  (Read 17545 times)
keith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


WWW
« on: April 01, 2012, 10:29:02 PM »

Caught this one live while I was flying through the sector (my calls along with just about all the others were edited out of this recording to keep it short).

N601AD departing HPN heading to TEB. TEB was in north ops at the time. Pilot checks in on 320 heading, controller eventually issues 180 heading, but meant to issue 280 heading. Fun ensues.

The pilot's read back seems a little unclear (first digit is unreadable, to my ears at least). Had it been more clear, the controller may have caught it. Another link in the incident chain.

Notice how spectacularly clear the subsequent read backs are?

The controller's point about working as a team was a good one. There are some nice learning points for pilots and controllers alike in this one.

* n601ad.mp3 (491.91 KB - downloaded 10089 times.)
Logged

KS Flight Log - pics, videos, ATC/intercom audio and in depth flight reviews
PilotEdge - add ATC to your simulation experience
rjs176cp
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2012, 10:50:47 PM »

good clip
Logged
notaperfectpilot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


PPL


« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2012, 08:30:41 AM »

the controller did say 180 and the pilot did read it back correctly....
Logged
johnm1019
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2012, 10:14:47 AM »

controller clearly says 180.
Logged
makonyy15
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2012, 10:45:38 AM »

I concur- definitely heard 180 from the controller.

Here's the flight path from FlightAware. Can clearly see the turn to 180 before the correction to 280.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N601AD/history/20120324/1830Z/KHPN/KTEB
Logged
keith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2012, 12:20:21 PM »

There is no contention about the fact that the controller said 180. 

The real learning here, I think, is that the pilots noticed the strange heading (likely given their experience in flying in/out of that airport) but didn't question/confirm the heading. That's the controller's point here.
Logged

KS Flight Log - pics, videos, ATC/intercom audio and in depth flight reviews
PilotEdge - add ATC to your simulation experience
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2012, 01:46:57 PM »

on initial call up the pilot already started using non standard phraseology.

"3 point 8 for 4 thousand"

3.8? he should be sent back to ground school.
Logged
SirIsaac787
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2012, 11:19:55 PM »

on initial call up the pilot already started using non standard phraseology.

"3 point 8 for 4 thousand"

3.8? he should be sent back to ground school.

Oh come on...

That has no bearing on this issue.
Logged
vb105
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12



« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2012, 07:29:53 AM »

Agreed!


on initial call up the pilot already started using non standard phraseology.

"3 point 8 for 4 thousand"

3.8? he should be sent back to ground school.

Oh come on...

That has no bearing on this issue.
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2012, 09:04:46 AM »

on initial call up the pilot already started using non standard phraseology.

"3 point 8 for 4 thousand"

3.8? he should be sent back to ground school.

Oh come on...

That has no bearing on this issue.
I'm not sure I agree.
Logged
notaperfectpilot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


PPL


« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2012, 09:09:42 AM »

on initial call up the pilot already started using non standard phraseology.

"3 point 8 for 4 thousand"

3.8? he should be sent back to ground school.

Oh come on...

That has no bearing on this issue.
I'm not sure I agree.


Yes, he did use non standard phraseology but I don't think that it is exactly pertinent to the situation though...

iskyfly: do you mind saying why you think that it is important? Maybe there is something that I am missing! 
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2012, 09:32:34 AM »

Laziness, complacency = bad habits. I am left to wonder what other non standard practices he performs when PIC.
Logged
notaperfectpilot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


PPL


« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2012, 09:40:30 AM »

sure, that is a good thing to wonder though, I don't know if we have enough information to say that he always uses non standard practices while PIC.
Logged
Rick108
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



« Reply #13 on: April 03, 2012, 09:58:55 AM »

on initial call up the pilot already started using non standard phraseology.

"3 point 8 for 4 thousand"

3.8? he should be sent back to ground school.

In busy NY airspace, this is pretty much standard phraseology.  Listen to JFK / TEB departure freq and you will hear this frequently. It may be non-standard by the book, but it is heavily used. You can't make any judgement about the pilot from this one transmission.
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #14 on: April 03, 2012, 11:07:51 AM »

on initial call up the pilot already started using non standard phraseology.

"3 point 8 for 4 thousand"

3.8? he should be sent back to ground school.

In busy NY airspace, this is pretty much standard phraseology.  Listen to JFK / TEB departure freq and you will hear this frequently. It may be non-standard by the book, but it is heavily used. You can't make any judgement about the pilot from this one transmission.

I doubt you would hear that from controllers.
 
Logged
StrongDreams
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #15 on: April 03, 2012, 11:59:40 AM »

on initial call up the pilot already started using non standard phraseology.

"3 point 8 for 4 thousand"

3.8? he should be sent back to ground school.

Oh come on...

That has no bearing on this issue.
I'm not sure I agree.

Now I'm curious because I hear this a lot out of KROC.  The first call to departure after being handed off from tower is usually something like "Citrus 598 climbing two point four for ten thousand."  There are other phrasings too, and I have never counted how many times each is used.  But to my uneducated ears it sounds standard because so many planes use it.
Logged
notaperfectpilot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


PPL


« Reply #16 on: April 03, 2012, 12:41:10 PM »

yes they use it quite often but technically they should say: "Citrus 598 climbing through two thousand four hundred for one zero thousand." that is the way that they are supposed to say it but most everybody recognizes what they mean by 2.4 for 10 or something like that....
Logged
makonyy15
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #17 on: April 03, 2012, 12:42:06 PM »

on initial call up the pilot already started using non standard phraseology.

"3 point 8 for 4 thousand"

3.8? he should be sent back to ground school.

Oh come on...

That has no bearing on this issue.
I'm not sure I agree.

Now I'm curious because I hear this a lot out of KROC.  The first call to departure after being handed off from tower is usually something like "Citrus 598 climbing two point four for ten thousand."  There are other phrasings too, and I have never counted how many times each is used.  But to my uneducated ears it sounds standard because so many planes use it.

I hear the same thing out of Syracuse frequently too... "Syracuse Depature, Eagle Flight 4058 climbing 2.5 for 4, runway heading." As per notaperfectpilot's post, it is incorrect, but frequently done.
Logged
martyj19
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 127


« Reply #18 on: April 03, 2012, 02:34:18 PM »

If I had a dollar for every time I have heard someone use the "2.4" shorthand, mostly heavy iron and not GA, I could pay for a lot of flight time.  I have done it myself.  Unless I am on a flight test or a stage check or something.  You would not hear it from controllers because part of their performance ratings is whether or not they use the officially approved phraseology.

Seriously, I don't see it as the big deal that iskyfly seems to think it is.  Yes it is nonstandard.  And certainly it has nothing whatever to do with the point of the clip, which is that the controller issued and the pilot followed a heading that the controller misspoke.
Logged
keith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 03, 2012, 02:56:24 PM »

Actually the point of the clip is that the pilot was suspect of the heading, but didn't say anything. That is the learning opportunity here.

If this was just a simple case of the pilot complying with a misspoken heading, it would still be interesting, but not really something anyone could learn from.

The altitude check-in is a complete red herring. Yes, it's slang, but it's not relevant.
Logged

KS Flight Log - pics, videos, ATC/intercom audio and in depth flight reviews
PilotEdge - add ATC to your simulation experience
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #20 on: April 03, 2012, 03:44:53 PM »

Ok, so on the point of relevance, if it makes you feel better, would you like a separate thread instead?
Logged
martyj19
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 127


« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2012, 04:45:20 PM »

Ok, so on the point of relevance, if it makes you feel better, would you like a separate thread instead?

I think it would be fine to agree to disagree.  There is no chance you will affect the behavior of the thousands of people who use the slang.  For further information, see http://xkcd.com/386/
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #22 on: April 03, 2012, 06:11:52 PM »

  There is no chance you will affect the behavior of the thousands of people who use the slang. 
That is a defeatist attitude and I disagree with the claim that "there is no chance".
 
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #23 on: April 03, 2012, 06:30:26 PM »

yes they use it quite often but technically they should say: "Citrus 598 climbing through two thousand four hundred for one zero thousand."

phrases such as the following should be avoided;
 "for", "out of", "at", "up to", "down to"

AIM 5-3-1

(a) When operating in a radar environment: On initial contact, the pilot should inform the controller of the aircraft's assigned altitude preceded by the words "level," or "climbing to," or "descending to," as appropriate; and the aircraft's present vacating altitude, if applicable.

EXAMPLE-
1. (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEVEL (altitude or flight level).
2. (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEAVING (exact altitude or flight level), CLIMBING TO OR DESCENDING TO (altitude of flight level).

"KROC departure, Citrus 598, leaving two thousand four hundred, climbing to one zero thousand."
Logged
klkm
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #24 on: April 03, 2012, 09:44:29 PM »

The fact is the AIM is a suggestion, the word "should" shows that it is not mandatory.  On a busy approach control freq the quicker the check in the better.  As a controller I have no problem, with 2.4 for 8, I am verifying the mode C with the 2.4, and verifying assigned altitude with the 8.  I do agree with the original post, if you are flying and I issue you a turn that sounds off, feel free to question it.  Every controller at some point has had the tapes pulled and they could have sworn they said "turn left heading 280" and you listen and it is clear as day "turn left heading 180".  Usually it is altitude that gets most in trouble, turns you can catch before it is too big of a problem, typically. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!