Author Topic: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot  (Read 34508 times)

Offline Casper87

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« on: May 22, 2010, 12:25:43 PM »
UAE018 seems a bit miffed at the prospect of waiting for OPS3.






Offline ect76

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
  • EGPH
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2010, 02:37:01 PM »
What an exchange. Never heard anything like it! It wasn't that big of an issue or that big of a delay.
Runway inspections are important and as I understood it from the tower controller must be completed at the specified time.
The Emirates asking the Easyjet directly for a PIREP (Which I'm not sure he ever gave) is also quite unusual....Right down to the coarse handoff to Scottish at the end. Overall an interesting listen!

Also he needs to Lockout all the Police/Taxi/Other digital services from his scanner...I also have a Uniden Bearcat and had the same problem till I locked everything out.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 02:38:56 PM by ect76 »

Offline Casper87

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2010, 03:21:39 PM »
Depending on the aerodrome, the airport authority decides when inspections are required. Sounds like this time the aircraft had to be delayed to allow it.
I don't think the delay was the problem but the pilot got snotty 'cos he didn't get an explanation without having to ask.

Very rare to hear controllers get that irate on frequency.

blackbox tango

  • Guest
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2010, 04:17:04 PM »
Dear Readers.
In the course of my duties this type of 'Critical communications' breaks down due to various issues such as Fuel being burned whilst holding which means changing the fuel figures at A1 ,plus commercial pressures both from the controllers and Aircrew to A/ to make the slot alike, sadly I must say after 30 years of being involved in Aviation 'critical comms', just in recent years this type of exchange happens about twice per shift per day at EGCC.

I must say it should be remembered that it was the lack of a Runway inspection which brought down the Airfrance Concorde and  in this case it appears commercial pressure was creeping in.

This delay for a unplanned runway inspection should be planned in at the Pre Flight Brief where the WX is doubtful and as we saw it looked like there was Weather to the South and to the Northeast of EGCC.

And the same goes in the case of a 'go around' this results in unsavoury remarks about how much a 'go around costs the company' hence why controllers tend to 'assist' Pilots to Vacate the Runway asap.
If Aircrew miss the taxiway very frequently! then this can cause the 'go around' and therefore moans and groans again this can be two go arounds per Morning rush hour 0630-0900 due to late vacating of the Runway.

So in this case it appears that Critical communications protocol was broken and even I conclude that it was unprofessional communications .
I would say it was a 70/30 situation.

Incidently a aeroplane burns 1 ton of fuel per engine whilst taxing and holding on a standard taxi either to J1/T1/A1 etc.
However I am not sure what the fuel burn is for that aeroplane.

Now that a lot of money being burned and then there is green issues to consider of an Aeroplane holding for longer than required, some Pilots shut down the engines and use the APU when held for long periods this saves overheating ,Fuel issues and Engine wear and tear.

Regards.



Offline Casper87

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2010, 05:01:18 PM »
Blackbox,

Whats your role at Manch?

You say exchanges like that are occuring regularly, is it purely due to aircraft getting delayed at the hold due runways inspections?

Regards,

C

blackbox tango

  • Guest
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2010, 11:00:11 AM »
Hi Casper.
I would prefer to keep that to myself otherwise I would not be able to chat like this lol.
Only that my ear is always firmly to the ground lol. :-D

Runway inspections take place after...
A,Before a Runway is to be used in Service ie Single runway operations, for example.
B, After a heavy landing, burst tyre debris,
C, Rabbit or hare or Mole /Fox being mowed down, Birdstike etc.
D, During a down poor of Rain/Snow  and after a downpoor of Rain/Snow  to determine the breaking action required ie the terms WET WET WET to prevent a overrun (like what happened  in India the other day!), and when Conditions called Low Visual Proceedures 'LVP' are in force so the deployment of the ops vehicle for a Runway or even FODDER inspection and removal on the Taxiway ie a plastic bag etc.

Note, it takes 6 minutes for a Runway inspection to be completed so it can have a knock on effect especially if ATC are launching 1 every 1 minute in peak period! give and take wake turbulance distance you can see the pressures both Aircrew and Controllers are under.
The knock on can mean Aircraft on stand, loosing their slot time.

So no wonder sometimes comments get out of hand as in the case of this example, I feel both the OPS Managers and the Air traffic contol team do a fantastic job under trying circumstances.
So a big thumbs up from me ...

On another note...
I have to say also Aircrew are still commenting on the being handed off to 'Scottish Control'  they just cannot get their heads round the change it is bizarre that the eyes up North are controling ex Manchester Sub centre areas .
However in reality it makes no difference it is just the thought of Scottish based controllers controlling out bound traffic from Liverpool and Manchester on handoff around 3,000ft QNH in the climb!.

That is all for now .
I feel a cup of tea is in order.

Regards.


Offline Casper87

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2010, 05:30:24 PM »
Bet the Scots are loving it though. Having some control over Northern England. :-D

With regards to routine inspections, didn't EGLL used to take 'checker' off the runway between movements? I'm guessing that isn't 'best practice' anymore.


Offline rekno13

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2010, 04:05:20 AM »
Didn't I read somewhere about scanners being illegal in England or something?

Offline KenboD

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #8 on: May 27, 2010, 08:09:16 AM »
Tower's attitude was combative. However, we're all just humans - emotions creep in now and then.

Offline sunburn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
    • flickr.
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #9 on: May 27, 2010, 09:24:20 AM »
Didn't I read somewhere about scanners being illegal in England or something?

Scanners are not illegal. It's just illegal to listen to/rebroadcast a radio frequency in which you're not permitted to do so.
However, if you're standing next to the runway with a scanner and the cops stop you, they'll just turn a blind eye due to the numbers of aviation enthusiasts who visit airports with scanners.

blackbox tango

  • Guest
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #10 on: May 27, 2010, 02:12:18 PM »
Emotions of Controllers /Aircrew alike.

Its called Human Factors and funny enough again I am on a course tomorrow covering just that very subject :x.

Mr/Mrs Sunburn, is spot on about legality of listening to Aviation transmissions.
The Interception of Communications act covers this as well as the Wireless Telegraphy act.

OFCOM the communication regulator has Officers that visit EGCC now and again from their Regional HQ  in Newton Le Willows in Lancashire.

Although entertaining hearing a argument ,a technical offence(s) may have taken place and this may have a knock on effect to anybody parked on that carpark in the future .
So bare this in mind before someone posts some audio.

Sunburn is also correct that Airport Police Officers turn a blind eye to earwigging, however I can assure you it does not go unnoticed, it depends how you behave lol you will be enjoying a cell, if you push it too far.

Having said that can you imagine 10,000 people all being locked up at IAT FAIRFORD now that would be interesting :-D

Regards for now.

« Last Edit: May 27, 2010, 02:19:17 PM by blackbox tango »

blackbox tango

  • Guest
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #11 on: May 27, 2010, 02:17:51 PM »
RE:-Scanners.

Please read the official Guidance Document.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/ifi/enforcement/guidance

Regards.


Offline retro11

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2010, 05:36:36 PM »
hi ,yeah its is strange to think aircraft out of manchester being handed over to scottish but the coverage down the north sea goes as far as the amsterdam fir im up in the NE of scotland and can hear the handovers to amsterdam 123.7 comming of scottish freq 133.875 in the lardi/godos area controller side only, maybe this is the start of world domination as football was a failure good luck in SA

Offline sunburn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
    • flickr.
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #13 on: May 27, 2010, 06:53:51 PM »
what makes me laugh is when east midlands hands off to scottish on 133.8!
before you know it, anything above the M25 will be scottish  :wink:

.mark

Offline rekno13

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #14 on: May 27, 2010, 10:09:46 PM »
Thanks for the clarification and links about scanners in the UK

Offline Fred_Garvin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2010, 01:38:56 PM »
Great posts Blackbox

blackbox tango

  • Guest
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2010, 05:42:43 AM »
Well it was a pleasure, to help out to enforce the position re the legality of Listening to Aviation transmissions.
99.995% of people are just enthusiasts or even the professionals! and I think it is widely known ....however the problem is when people go too far, sadly this may have an impact for the Majority as with anything.

What I can tell you that Communication protocol has been  tightened up so action has been taken in regard to unprofessional comments and so there are no red faces in the Mess room etc.

That is all .

Regards.

Offline VDPP_ATC

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #17 on: September 16, 2010, 08:31:29 AM »
Just for info guys, the Youtube video/audio has been removed!

So I'll not get to hear this particular little té ta té  :cry:

alltheway

  • Guest
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2010, 11:05:52 AM »
So, where is the video? I have read the http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/spectrum-enforcement/guidance information, where ATC is an public broadcast (not encrypted) nor a illegal (pirate) radio station ! No private information is obtained (names or addresses) and just a common radio band for what means there is some ethics about what people say on it. (like Internet or CB band never expose your address or real name for abuse matters)

The main focus for rules like this are (IMO) to protect private conversations like phone calls or transmissions that can be compared to a phone system.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2010, 11:11:17 AM by alltheway »

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #19 on: September 17, 2010, 01:38:19 PM »

I must say it should be remembered that it was the lack of a Runway inspection which brought down the Airfrance Concorde
I thought it was poor mx that resulted in a 17-inch strip of metal to fall off a Continental DC-10 that caused the crash for which a welder who worked for Continental at the time and his supervisor are now facing involuntary manslaughter charges.


Offline Blackbird78

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #20 on: September 19, 2010, 12:07:27 AM »
OT - sorry, just a short reply:

I thought it was poor mx that resulted in a 17-inch strip of metal to fall off a Continental DC-10 that caused the crash ...


Think again. It's never one single factor. Heard of the 'Swiss cheese model'?

As I recall from what I read:
-> acft was overfueled and overloaded (cruise ship pax with way more baggage than average Concorde flyer + some 600 kg extra that were not even on loadsheet)
-> CG was out of limits to the rear
-> so cpt. decided to have fuel transfer pumps (tail to main tanks) running during take-off (SOP was off until after clean up)
-> consequently main tank was kept at 100% full
-> means no gas bubble built up inside that could have absorbed shockwave from impact of  ...
-> debris of tire that burst after hitting ominous metal strip
-> which most probably would not have happened if tire was not deflated split seconds earlier from wear+tear because ...
-> wheel was wobbling due to missing spacer (since tire change 4 days earlier)
-> sudden loss of tire pressure caused plane veer left off centerline towards metal strip in the first place
-> performance calculations based on 10 kts headwind -> actually 4 kts tailwind on take-off
-> ...
- fact that F/O did not have valid medical certificate had admittedly no impact, but adds to the impression of bad safety culture

If you want to learn more, start here (especially Cpt. Bannister's remarks) or here.


Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: Manchester Tower Argument with Emirates Pilot
« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2010, 10:20:33 AM »


Think again. It's never one single factor. Heard of the 'Swiss cheese model'?
Yes