Ask The Pilot

[CaviAck]

Dont know about pilots having a chat on 123.45 but a famil trip I did in the jump seat on a UA flight to LAX ex SYD, we had the radar altimeter show 4000 ft at one stage as it bounced over another LAX bound aircraft underneath us, modern navaids reduce the highway width!

How long ago was this trip?

 

[markis10]

How long ago was this trip?

1987, pre GPS :shock:

 

[RooFlyer]

Hi jb747

This query is prompted by a recent incident where Air Canada Flight 178 was about to land at Toronto's Pearson airport. An unattended service truck was detected by ground radar as rolling towards (or over, its not quite clear) the approach end of the runway AC178 was about to use. (!) The plane was said to be 'minutes out'.

ATC twice ordered a 'go around' but AC178 continued with its landing, uneventfully as it happens. The ATC commands were 'clipped' - the first time it apparently came out as "178 pull up and go-around sir" and the second was a bit garbled but was probably clipped to "178 go-around sir" as well.

ATC asked if AC178 heard the 'go around' and said they did, but thought it referred to another flight. :shock:

Aviation Herald report here: Incident: Air Canada E190 at Toronto on Mar 11th 2013, did not follow two instructions to go around

Audio here: http://archive-server.liveatc.net/cyyz/CYYZ-Twr-Mar-12-2013-0330Z.mp3

I guess its easy to be wise after the event, but when one is on final approach, even "go around" I would think should be sufficient to get the pilot's attention, as there may only be a handful of planes it might refer to.

JB would you care to express an opinion on what's happened here? (I'm not sure how reliable the AH is regarded as but the audio seems reasonably clear cut as to what the pilots may have heard. But I know my living room is a lot more serene than the coughpit of a jet on final approach!)

How common is such confusion, in your experience, especially where English isn't ATC's first language?

 

[jb747]

Do you ever fly the Sydney - LAX route?

Occasionally. I generally try to get flying that goes through Melbourne.

 

[jb747]

Speaking (or rather, writing) about training, management, etc, is there a seniority list for these positions as well? If so, I am imagining that they would've trained on Comets or something, given the average age of your contemporaries...

Seniority has no application here. I don't know how it works, they've never invited me....

 

[jb747]

I've noticed QF107, QF15 and QF93 to LAX (as an example) often tend to fly within close proximity of each other. Would they communicate, even if just to pass the time? Or would there be any other reason for them to communicate?

We virtually never talk to each other. Firstly, even though the timings may have the aircraft arriving at similar times, they are often on quite different routes that can have them thousands of miles apart. Secondly, chatter on the radios is considered very bad manners. Only a couple of frequencies are used for pilot to pilot comms, and any chatter is heard by every aircraft. Chatter on guard (which is indulged in by some) is worse than bad manners.

If I want to pass the time, there are plenty of people in my aircraft that I can talk to.....

 

[jb747]

1987, pre GPS :shock:

In those days it was just luck if they were that close. Now, especially with RVSM as well, you pass so close that you can sometimes hear the other aircraft.

 

[jb747]

This query is prompted by a recent incident where Air Canada Flight 178 was about to land at Toronto's Pearson airport. An unattended service truck was detected by ground radar as rolling towards (or over, its not quite clear) the approach end of the runway AC178 was about to use. (!) The plane was said to be 'minutes out'.

ATC twice ordered a 'go around' but AC178 continued with its landing, uneventfully as it happens. The ATC commands were 'clipped' - the first time it apparently came out as "178 pull up and go-around sir" and the second was a bit garbled but was probably clipped to "178 go-around sir" as well.

ATC asked if AC178 heard the 'go around' and said they did, but thought it referred to another flight.

Probably more to this tale that you get from the media report or the audio.

I'm not sure how you ignore a go around call...you could at least query it. It would possibly have helped if the phrase used was a bit more standard... and you certainly don't need to adding 'sir' on the end of it, or 'pull up' at the start. Landing without a clearance is relatively common. Ignoring one isn't.

How common is such confusion, in your experience, especially where English isn't ATC's first language?

In this case, English is their first language. I've never heard of this sort of thing. Whilst the crew are pretty busy, you'd most certainly expect the non flying pilot to be all ears.

I wonder what sort of working day they'd had. Was it the end of some huge shift? Are these aircraft flown by actual AC pilots or has it been outsourced?

 

[Mattg]

We virtually never talk to each other. Firstly, even though the timings may have the aircraft arriving at similar times, they are often on quite different routes that can have them thousands of miles apart. Secondly, chatter on the radios is considered very bad manners. Only a couple of frequencies are used for pilot to pilot comms, and any chatter is heard by every aircraft. Chatter on guard (which is indulged in by some) is worse than bad manners.

If I want to pass the time, there are plenty of people in my aircraft that I can talk to.....

That's interesting that you say aircraft don't usually fly in groups or communicate. I've noticed on flight radars that the LAX flights I mentioned before, as an example, usually (but not always) do fly within close proximity of each other, as if following the same route and/or each other. Would this just be coincidence?

 

[markis10]

That's interesting that you say aircraft don't usually fly in groups or communicate. I've noticed on flight radars that the LAX flights I mentioned before, as an example, usually (but not always) do fly within close proximity of each other, as if following the same route and/or each other. Would this just be coincidence?

Unlike Ducks there is no protection in a flock so to speak, just coincidence, unless there is an issue like the QF747 that tailed a NZ 747 ex LAX when it has a US weather radar in 08, now that made sense.

 

[jstewart70]

Occasionally. I generally try to get flying that goes through Melbourne.

Well from what I have seen of you flying on your videos, I can only hope you are flying me and my family over that ocean!!!! Of course I trust all Qantas pilots though.

When I flew to London many moons ago I was able to visit the coughpit for 1/2 hr or so and got some awesome photos. I would assume since 911 that is now not allowed...

 

[CaviAck]

Well from what I have seen of you flying on your videos, I can only hope you are flying me and my family over that ocean!!!! Of course I trust all Qantas pilots though.

When I flew to London many moons ago I was able to visit the coughpit for 1/2 hr or so and got some awesome photos. I would assume since 911 that is now not allowed...

Just ask one of the FA's if they could pass on your request to the flight crew if you can go up to the coughpit after landing. When disembarking starts the FA should either come get you or stop you at the door and show you up to the coughpit if your request was granted by the flight crew. I asked one of the FA's on my flight home LAX-SYD and they passed it onto the flight crew. Just before landing they told me I could go up and told me to ask the FA at the door to show me the way. Had the nice FO Houston show me around the coughpit.

 

[jb747]

That's interesting that you say aircraft don't usually fly in groups or communicate. I've noticed on flight radars that the LAX flights I mentioned before, as an example, usually (but not always) do fly within close proximity of each other, as if following the same route and/or each other. Would this just be coincidence?

Between most destinations, there are laid down airways (i.e. there are about 6 parallel ones between LA and Hawaii). Aircraft all fly at about the same speed, so will tend to stay in whatever relative position they start out in. On some routes, free tracking is allowed, in which case companies can plan pretty well any route. Most of our flights across the Pacific fit into this system.

And, when you think about it, what is there to talk about? Gibberish (i.e. chatter) has no place on the radio, and beyond that, we all have the same tools available to us for handling weather, etc.

 

[mjt57]

JB, listening to SYD ATC via liveatc.net. (Missus is flying to JFK). What is the "director" that ATC is refering to when speaking to flights?

 

[jb747]

JB, listening to SYD ATC via liveatc.net. (Missus is flying to JFK). What is the "director" that ATC is refering to when speaking to flights?

That's just the last phase of 'approach'. They take you from about 15 miles to the point where you are sent to 'tower'. They generally provide radar vectors to the aircraft, to ensure they arrive at the runway with the right spacing.

 

[mjt57]

That's just the last phase of 'approach'. They take you from about 15 miles to the point where you are sent to 'tower'. They generally provide radar vectors to the aircraft, to ensure they arrive at the runway with the right spacing.

Ok, thanks JB. There appears to be different freqs, 126.1 and 126.3 that I've heard used, so far.

 

[jb747]

Ok, thanks JB. There appears to be different freqs, 126.1 and 126.3 that I've heard used, so far.

Different controllers looking after aircraft headed to different runways. It's quite normal for ATC airspace to be divided up into sectors of some sort. Nobody would ever be able to get a word in if we were all on the same frequency.

 

[mjt57]

Nobody would ever be able to get a word in if we were all on the same frequency.

I can believe that. Sydney sounds busy, and I've listened to ATC at JFK (UAL flight). The guy was non-stop talk, talk, talk... (he'd make a good wife...)

 

[markis10]

Ok, thanks JB. There appears to be different freqs, 126.1 and 126.3 that I've heard used, so far.

Approach is what used to known as arrivals when Sydney still had an area approach control centre, it's divided into South/ West and North/ East and starts at 40nm down to 10 nm at which point the directors (east/ west) take over, however early transfers are possible between sectors. Most airspace under positive control is divided laterally with the exception of the odd secondary airport, when I worked in the Bankstown tower we had zero to 1500 with 2000 available if the director let us. Airspace is divided laterally in many parts of the world because of the lessons learned from one of the worst mid-air collisions - Zagreb, where altitude blocks were the sectors.

 

[mjt57]

Approach is what used to known as arrivals when Sydney still had an area approach control centre, it's divided into South/ West and North/ East

Thanks Mark.

I was trying to find different frequencies to listen to such as ground, and also these director frequencies, but that liveATC.net site only has two links to click on.