Author Topic: "where in God's name are you going?"  (Read 19173 times)

Offline keith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • KS Flight Log
"where in God's name are you going?"
« 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.


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

Offline rjs176cp

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2012, 10:50:47 PM »
good clip

Offline notaperfectpilot

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • PPL
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2012, 08:30:41 AM »
the controller did say 180 and the pilot did read it back correctly....

Offline johnm1019

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2012, 10:14:47 AM »
controller clearly says 180.

Offline makonyy15

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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

Offline keith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • KS Flight Log
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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.
KS Flight Log - pics, videos, ATC/intercom audio and in depth flight reviews
PilotEdge - add ATC to your simulation experience

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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.

Offline SirIsaac787

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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.

Offline vb105

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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.

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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.

Offline notaperfectpilot

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • PPL
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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! 

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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.

Offline notaperfectpilot

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • PPL
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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.

Offline Rick108

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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.

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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.
 

Offline StrongDreams

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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.

Offline notaperfectpilot

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • PPL
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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....

Offline makonyy15

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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.

Offline martyj19

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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.

Offline keith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • KS Flight Log
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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.
KS Flight Log - pics, videos, ATC/intercom audio and in depth flight reviews
PilotEdge - add ATC to your simulation experience

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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?

Offline martyj19

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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/

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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".
 

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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."

Offline klkm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: "where in God's name are you going?"
« 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.