Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 21, 2014, 08:51:29 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  ZOA testing the patience of Cathay 870 pilot
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: ZOA testing the patience of Cathay 870 pilot  (Read 16827 times)
silagi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64



« on: February 19, 2010, 04:16:25 PM »

First this controller did not seem to care that Cathay Pacific 870 had a TCAS RA.  Then when he wanted the altimeter setting, it was like she did not understand what he was asking for.  Sure the term QNH is more of a European thing but this controller should have known what he was requesting.
Logged
midcon385
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2010, 07:45:30 PM »

Kind of irritating indeed...

Tim
Logged
Squawk 7700
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 436



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2010, 10:01:14 PM »

I heard the same earlier this morning too. Yes, CPA870 did sound a little bit irritated.
Logged

Feeder:
KHWD Ground/Tower
KOAK Del/Gnd/Twr
KSFO NORCAL App Rwy 28L/R
KSFO Tower/Ground
NORCAL Approach (KOAK)
NORCAL Departure (KSFO/KOAK)
KSJC NORCAL Approach #2
ZOA Oakland Center (35/40/41)

RJTT App/Dep
RJTT Tokyo Control
RJTT Twr/TCA
sykocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347



« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2010, 11:33:02 PM »

First this controller did not seem to care that Cathay Pacific 870 had a TCAS RA.  Then when he wanted the altimeter setting, it was like she did not understand what he was asking for.  Sure the term QNH is more of a European thing but this controller should have known what he was requesting.

Well to be blunt when a pilot tells you he has a TCAS RA there is much to do or "care" about. It's already happening and there's nothing to do about it at that point.

From the traffic call on it sounded like the controller was flustered. I don't think she was ignoring the pilot as much as she was flustered, and probably not "hearing" what the pilot was saying. It's hard to get a good idea of what the controller was going though from a few minute clip not to mention all the stuff that is going on in background in the control room that doesn't come over the radio.
Logged

Yesterday I couldn't spell air traffic controller. Today I R one.
fholbert
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144



WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2010, 10:21:53 AM »

There is proper phraseology for asking for an altimeter setting and QNH isn't it.  The pilot of CPA870 knew what the problem was and kept insisting on using QNH finally mixed with "altimeter".  

Aviation 101, use proper phraseology.
Logged

Frank Holbert
http://160knots.com
sunburn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2010, 03:23:06 PM »

There is proper phraseology for asking for an altimeter setting and QNH isn't it.  The pilot of CPA870 knew what the problem was and kept insisting on using QNH finally mixed with "altimeter".  

Aviation 101, use proper phraseology.

but it's in the handbook?

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pcg/Q.HTM
Logged
silagi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64



« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2010, 03:46:03 PM »

Yes QNH is ICAO approved phraseology and is used in many parts of the world.  While not common in the US, it is still approved and any controller or pilot should know what it means.
Logged
fholbert
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2010, 04:22:32 PM »

Yes QNH is ICAO approved phraseology and is used in many parts of the world.  While not common in the US, it is still approved and any controller or pilot should know what it means.

In some parts of the world ICAO towers speak Russian. But this isn't Russia.
Logged

Frank Holbert
http://160knots.com
fholbert
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144



WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2010, 04:35:34 PM »

but it's in the handbook?

Not as phraseology.
Logged

Frank Holbert
http://160knots.com
tsoukou
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2010, 05:38:10 PM »

The one that used the wrong phraseology initially was the controller. Not the pilot. It's understandable that the CX pilot sounds irritated.
1) He gets an RA, which means that the CTR controller had a deal (Controller's operational error).
2) Then the controller issues a "descend and maintain FL100". Transition Level for the US is FL180. Anything below that should be expressed as altitude not Flight Level.
3) Even when the controller corrected the mistake by saying "descend and maintain 10,000" she HAS to give the altimeter (ATC 7110.65 2-7-2.e  
Quote
When issuing clearance to descend below the
lowest usable flight level, advise the pilot of the
altimeter setting of the weather reporting station
nearest the point the aircraft will descend below that
flight level.
She didn't give the altimeter, which was her 3d mistake in a row with the same aircraft, and led the pilot to ask for the "QNH".
Probably she lost her nerve with the deal which is understandable.

As for the QNH, it is included in the PCG which is a requirement for the controller to know, thus it's included in the .65. The pilot was speaking English fluently. If the controller heard the word QNH for the first time in her life, what can I say...

Logged
silagi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64



« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2010, 06:16:02 PM »

And she had that deal out over the ocean in uncongested airspace.  Right after where I cut the recording, a few minutes later they were cleared direct PIRAT which is about 25 miles offshore on the approach to SFO.  Not a lot of little guys flying around out there uncontrolled to get in the way.  They were probably 50 miles offshore when that happened and the only congestion is from inbound trans Pacific flights.   She also messed up calling the traffic for the United flight by telling him the wrong aircraft type. 
Logged
sykocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347



« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2010, 01:45:41 AM »

The one that used the wrong phraseology initially was the controller. Not the pilot. It's understandable that the CX pilot sounds irritated.
1) He gets an RA, which means that the CTR controller had a deal (Controller's operational error).
2) Then the controller issues a "descend and maintain FL100". Transition Level for the US is FL180. Anything below that should be expressed as altitude not Flight Level.
3) Even when the controller corrected the mistake by saying "descend and maintain 10,000" she HAS to give the altimeter (ATC 7110.65 2-7-2.e  
Quote
When issuing clearance to descend below the
lowest usable flight level, advise the pilot of the
altimeter setting of the weather reporting station
nearest the point the aircraft will descend below that
flight level.
She didn't give the altimeter, which was her 3d mistake in a row with the same aircraft, and led the pilot to ask for the "QNH".
Probably she lost her nerve with the deal which is understandable.

As for the QNH, it is included in the PCG which is a requirement for the controller to know, thus it's included in the .65. The pilot was speaking English fluently. If the controller heard the word QNH for the first time in her life, what can I say...



She definitely made mistakes. If I could play devil's advocate for a little while though. Depending on how far out over the ocean the were the transition altitude can be as low as 055. Also with some exceptions 055 is also the start of Class A airspace in the Oakland FIR thus making FL100 technically correct in some instances.
Logged

Yesterday I couldn't spell air traffic controller. Today I R one.
koutsou
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2010, 03:31:33 AM »

Good point. The controller though was a domestic controller (KZOA not KZAK). In the area of interest, the aircraft was inbound to SFO through Woodside VOR. They always issue the 8000-10000 crossing for OSI and I think that was exactly what the controller was trying to do. In the area of interest, the ARTCC (UIR for the ICAO fans) border extents to ~150nm from the coast. It's pretty obvious that it was not a case of a descent into the pacific offshore airspace. In any case, the pilot would definitely ask for the reason of such an early descent. Fuel is extremely valuable nowadays  smiley
Logged
ryballz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2010, 11:03:28 PM »

The one that used the wrong phraseology initially was the controller. Not the pilot. It's understandable that the CX pilot sounds irritated.
1) He gets an RA, which means that the CTR controller had a deal (Controller's operational error).
2) Then the controller issues a "descend and maintain FL100". Transition Level for the US is FL180. Anything below that should be expressed as altitude not Flight Level.
3) Even when the controller corrected the mistake by saying "descend and maintain 10,000" she HAS to give the altimeter (ATC 7110.65 2-7-2.e  
Quote
When issuing clearance to descend below the
lowest usable flight level, advise the pilot of the
altimeter setting of the weather reporting station
nearest the point the aircraft will descend below that
flight level.
She didn't give the altimeter, which was her 3d mistake in a row with the same aircraft, and led the pilot to ask for the "QNH".
Probably she lost her nerve with the deal which is understandable.

As for the QNH, it is included in the PCG which is a requirement for the controller to know, thus it's included in the .65. The pilot was speaking English fluently. If the controller heard the word QNH for the first time in her life, what can I say...



I've never heard QNH used, and to tell you the truth wouldn't have known what it meant until I saw this thread. Sorry to admit that I don't have the entire PCG memorized.

A TCAS RA doesn't necessarily mean a deal. In the case of a rapidly climbing ac under a level ac, TCAS doesn't know what the climber (or descender) will stop at and can give an RA. Part of the reason why it's a good idea to call traffic for merging targets, even if they're more than 1k apart.

Sounds like a trainee based on the traffic call and the flight level one zero zero, maybe even the dside.
Logged
The Hoffspatcher
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2010, 05:24:24 AM »

I think technically QNH is reference to atmospheric pressure so the altimeter reads elevation when on the ground whereas QFE is set to read zero on the groud almost like a radio altemeter.

Russia used QFE wherease everybody else uses QNH so agian, technically I think QNH and altimeter are the same thing!

That is why Russian meter levels (QFE) are different than China who use QNH
Logged

Ben Hoffman; BAv, ADX
Trust your Dispatcher!
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 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!