what to do with wind info just prior to takeoff

[Driver170 42]

Just to add

 

 

ICAO

 

7.3.1.2 AERODROME AND METEOROLOGICAL

INFORMATION

7.3.1.2.1 Prior to taxiing for take-off, aircraft shall be advised of the following elements of information, in the order listed, with the exception of such elements which it is known the aircraft has already received:

the runway to be used;

the surface wind direction and speed, including significant variations therefrom;...

 

AND

 

3.1.2.2 Prior to take-off aircraft shall be advised of:

any significant changes in the surface wind direction and speed, the air temperature, and the visibility or RVR value(s) given in accordance with 7.3.1.2.1;

 

 

And none of you mentioned the important one! Is having a mental note of the wind incase you have a engine fire, which could backup kyles theory?

[Nick Dobda 24]

All great info, thanks all. Many things to consider for young pilots getting into the field. 

For me on the other hand, probably I'll just get in the habit of checking what I had planned for vs. what they are telling me. In sim world this check would just verify that my ASN has updated properly and I didn't call up my weather info before the ASN program had a chance to download / update to current conditions (which has happened to me once or twice before). Either that or I mistakenly got off the live weather mode and was left in manual mode or something. 

 

Important thing being that I now know I don't have to read back the winds they tell me.. I never did and never heard anyone read it back  but wasn't sure. I have heard the ATIS information version read back. 

Which reminds me of another quirk, when requesting IFR clearance, should you let dispatch know which version of ATIS you're using, or is that a VFR thing? 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Important thing being that I now know I don't have to read back the winds they tell me.. I never did and never heard anyone read it back  but wasn't sure. I have heard the ATIS information version read back. 

 

ATIS code? Advised upon checking in with approach, or tower if you're flying VFR and checking in with them directly. This is something forgotten amongst the VFR crowd so much that  the tower at Lancaster (LNS) recently took to adding a joke into their ATIS info to see who was paying attention: "for a chance at winning one million dollars, advise you have information Kilo."

 

The wind does not need to be read back. In a busy time, it needlessly ties up the frequency.

 

 

 

Which reminds me of another quirk, when requesting IFR clearance, should you let dispatch know which version of ATIS you're using, or is that a VFR thing? 

 

Dispatch? Dispatch is the group that sends you your flight plan, and files it on your behalf. Did you mean "clearance" or "clearance delivery?" If so, yes:

"Dulles Clearance, United 1234 with Uniform, clearance to Houston."

 

 

Do note that various EU states ask for random other bits of information: stand (gate) number, QNH, etc.

[Nick Dobda 24]

 

 

Did you mean "clearance" or "clearance delivery?"

 

Yes, clearance delivery. Failing that (not available) whoever up the line who happens to be clearing you if they're online.

I remember you had mentioned before about omitting VFR / IFR when requesting clearance. Do all controllers share your thoughts on that? Also where does one find the random bits of information? 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Yes, clearance delivery. Failing that (not available) whoever up the line who happens to be clearing you if they're online.

 

Correct.

 

 

 

I remember you had mentioned before about omitting VFR / IFR when requesting clearance. Do all controllers share your thoughts on that? Also where does one find the random bits of information? 

 

If I'm remembering correctly, I was specifically referring to calling ground for taxi instructions. The sim-based ATC's dialogue includes VFR/IFR in the taxi instruction request, which is correct per the AIM, but really superfluous now. Let's keep in mind that the AIM's example dialogue still refers to Page Aviation at Dulles (hasn't been there since the 70s or 80s, if I recall correctly - this same section refers to BWI as "Washington," and IAD is still "projected" to get ASDE-X, which has been there for about 8 years now, so...there's that...). The taxi VFR/IFR procedure is deprecated in my opinion, as facilities and procedures have evolved.

 

When requesting clearance in general, IFR is assumed if you call in with an airline-type code, since most all of them go into Class A airspace, which requires an IFR plan. It's also an established norm. Note that many ATIS broadcasts include instructions for VFR to include particular information. This is an additional tip off to the controller you're VFR and that they shouldn't look for a flight plan in the strip bay (and should make one for you, per facility/inter-facility SOP/LOA).

 

"Dulles Clearance, Cessna 49486, with Uniform, departure northbound."

...versus...

"Dulles Clearance, Cessna 49486, with Uniform, clearance to Harrisburg."

 

While it's more appropriate to say "VFR departure northbound," I intentionally left it out to show that the controller could easily pick it up without specifically hearing VFR/IFR.

 

Depends on the facility, though. Even within Potomac TRACON (PCT), you'll see each area handles things differently. The area covering CHO and RIC ("James River" - JRV) always seems a bit confused by my lack of SFRA flight plan going into JYO (not required because of the Leesburg Maneuvering Area - this is the only airport within the SFRA that does not require the procedure, thus the confusion by JRV), while the area covering IAD, HEF, and JYO ("Shenandoah" - SHD) is more familiar with the LMA given it's within its area of responsibility. Similarly, one of the flight schools in the area uses an LOA-approved callsign between it, local towers, and the TRACON. Fly outside the coverage of PCT and you'll get a slightly confused response on the other end when you use the callsign instead of the N-number. Picking up on stuff like this is all about operating in that environment though. I know a ton about PCT from flying around its airspace a lot, but SoCal? Forget it. Not a clue other than I'm sure they're a lot better at controlling VFR, given the amount of VFR traffic out there going through controlled airspace. Here? Most pilots avoid the B because it's a little easier to do so.

 

 

 

For questions of US-based phraseology, one of the best resources is the AIM (specifically Section 4-2 and 4-3), and the Pilot Controller Glossary:

AIM: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/aim_basic_4-03-14.pdf

PCG: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/pcg_4-03-14.pdf

[skelsey 765]

 

 

should you let dispatch know which version of ATIS you're using

 

As Kyle says, yes -- and the reason is hinted at in Vernon's quote above.

 

 

 

Prior to taxiing for take-off, aircraft shall be advised of the following elements of information, in the order listed, with the exception of such elements which it is known the aircraft has already received...

 

By checking in with Delivery (or Approach on the way in) with the current ATIS code, you are letting them know that you already have the information listed and therefore they don't need to waste their breath (and RT time) giving it to you. If you don't have the current ATIS, however, they are required to give you the info themselves (which obviously takes time on a busy frequency!).

 

As mentioned, here in the UK most places require aircraft type, stand number, ATIS letter and current QNH in the initial call, but the FAA are rather more relaxed .

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

As mentioned, here in the UK most places require aircraft type, stand number, ATIS letter and current QNH in the initial call, but the FAA are rather more relaxed .

 

Is there a reasoning behind this? Is it perhaps some kind of implied challenge/response to ensure the correct crew is calling about the correct callsign, with the correct info?

 

To me, it's a bit much:

• Aircraft type is filed on the flight plan.
• Stand number isn't quite relevant until requesting push/taxi
• [ATIS letter makes sense]
• QNH is in the ATIS, and if the idea is to prevent ATIS parroting (a legitimate issue), if I'm parroting an ATIS code I could easily parrot the QNH

Just curious why all of this got added in...

[Nick Dobda 24]

 

 

For questions of US-based phraseology, one of the best resources is the AIM (specifically Section 4-2 and 4-3), and the Pilot Controller Glossary:
AIM: https://www.faa.gov/...sic_4-03-14.pdf
PCG: http://www.faa.gov/a...pcg_4-03-14.pdf

 

great info and reading material, thanks!

[downscc 1,327]

Depends on the facility

 

Put this is bold typeface.  I am a foreigner when i am "back East."  I got into a little trouble leaving TEB VFR because I am so used to HOU departure instructions that include an altitude constraint but not at TEB! That important piece of information is left up to the pilot to figure out on their own by checking the charts. So on checking in with Departure for flight following i was quickly sent back down to 2000. That was embarrassing.  My home patch CRP is very friendly even if they are often very busy with Navy training flights, they always offer VFR flight following and departure hands off to center. We're real friendly in Texas.

[skelsey 765]

 

 

Is it perhaps some kind of implied challenge/response to ensure the correct crew is calling about the correct callsign, with the correct info?

 

As I understand it, the aircraft type thing is mainly to catch errors on the flight plan -- with repetitive FPLs being filed for many scheduled flights, occasionally a change message either isn't filed or doesn't propagate through the system properly when a last-minute equipment change is made (or the Eurocontrol computer in Paris doesn't have the right type -- I kid you not -- not sure if it's been changed now but at one point, for instance, the Paris computer couldn't tell the difference between, say, an A340-300 and an A340-600, whereas the NATS computer in London could -- minor difference on paper, but quite a big difference in terms of climb performance and therefore useful for ATC to know). I've read stories of a "B777" which had flown across several continents and actually turned out to be a B742, "B737s" that turned out to be DC9s and more. B757 vs B767 would also be an interesting situation on final if you were the following aircraft. 

 

I think essentially there were so many instances of aircraft turning up with the wrong type on the plan that it was decided to check it for all departures and arrivals -- obviously accurate type information is important for both wake separation and conditional clearances. Bearing in mind not all ATCOs are champion spotters, the safest way is for the crew themselves to report it.

 

I've never found a "smoking gun" reason for the QNH, other than anecdotal evidence that there are a number of level bust incidents related to crews setting the wrong QNH and various other suggestions including ATIS parroting (as you mention), double checking in case digits have been transposed when copying from the ATIS etc. The ultimate reason (which isn't particularly satisfactory) is 'cos the MATS pt 1 (the ATC manual) says so:

 

 

Section 3 Chapter 1

11.5 In the case of a departure ATIS, controllers must obtain a read-back of all relevant altimeter settings contained in the broadcast, unless the setting will also be passed in association with start-up or taxi clearance

 

The RT manual (CAP413) also implies that the controller must ensure that the pilot has the correct QNH when giving taxi instructions:

 

 

4.17 Where an ATIS broadcast is established the controller does not need to pass departure information to the pilot when giving taxi instructions. He will, however, check that the aircraft is in possession of the latest QNH.

 

It follows, therefore, that if you report the correct QNH when calling for your clearance, the controller can mark on your strip that you have it and then only needs to pass it with the taxi instructions if it has changed.

 

Stand number, again, as far as I understand it is mainly just a check to ensure the information on the strip is correct and saves time later when requesting push.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

As I understand it, the aircraft type thing is mainly to catch errors on the flight plan -- with repetitive FPLs being filed for many scheduled flights, occasionally a change message either isn't filed or doesn't propagate through the system properly when a last-minute equipment change is made

 

This makes sense. We've had similar issues here on the paper side, but the ground controllers are usually pretty good with updating it when they spot the aircraft.

 

 

 

The ultimate reason (which isn't particularly satisfactory) is 'cos the MATS pt 1 (the ATC manual) says so

 

Yeah - I was just wondering why it was in there. Over here, for better or worse, things usually don't get added unless there was some specific incident where a new action could have prevented something...the old "FAA Regs are written in blood" point.

 

 

 

Stand number, again, as far as I understand it is mainly just a check to ensure the information on the strip is correct and saves time later when requesting push.

 

Makes sense for operations over there. A lot of our ramp areas are non-movement areas from the FAA standpoint, so the operator (airline, FBO, etc) or airport operator will approve/direct pushes. When the aircraft finally calls ground, they're usually far enough away from the gate/stand that a reference to it would be worthless. As an example, someone pushing off of A5F for Runway 19L (bottom right of the image), wouldn't talk to ground until reaching the top right of the image (another image-width beyond it, actually - A or B short of J if you look at the taxi diagram):

 

 

Interesting to see the differences, though!

[JC75 22]

Actually pilots reporting QNH on clearance request is often quite annoying to most UK ATCOs, as they will generally always pass it as part of the Taxi Instructions, due to a high potential that from clearance request time, pushing back and then taxing out it likely changed.

 

Quite correct though that UK regs require that at some stage before takeoff it will be required to have been read back(and a pressure setting is always a mandatory read back)

 

 

A/C type - correct get lots of misfiled a/c changes, again all the reasons you stated are issues, but equally parts of the aprons and taxiways can't always be seen by towers, but the pushback or use of a particular taxiway can be aircraft type dependant, so strip says it a A340-300 and actually its a -600 could result in a interesting moment when you try and send it down  a link it can't make, or wipes the tails out of a few other stands.

 

Stand no - helps with planning, not all strip systems have the stand number fetched automatically from the airports stand planning system, so the controller has a flight strip with all the flight details on but no clue where on the airfield the ac is parked, even where they do, again its been known for late changes of aircraft use on a route, so an opportunity to check the stand planning system is aligned with the ac that calling, and not the one that may have been doing the flight 30 mins ago, due tech a/c etc.

 

Obviously CPDLC fixes most of this - as it all done digitally.

 

"Heathrow delivery, BAW123, A 747-400 on stand 535, with uniform request clearance to Houston." works just great!

 

For arrival - onto approach(along as this at the director stage, where callsign only is often just whats needed)

 

"Approach, BAW123, 747 with A, descending FL090 DCT BNN, or on BNN1A(and then any other co-ordinated instruction outside of the star, such as speed, heading)

 

Some a/c will tell you passing level also - which for arrival is pointless, as I have radar and can see that - for departure its often required in order to validate the Mode C readout.

 

The unique difference between much of the usa and also parts of Europe  versus the UK and some other countries, where "Apron" control is used, for pushback and taxiing aircraft, and managing the conflictions of that, and the planning is what is fundamentally a GMC role in the UK - at Heathrow this is probably the most challenging positions. Not sure what the case is in the US, but these Apron "Controllers" in europe are not licensed personnel and don't work for the ANSP (ATC) so I find it quite an interesting factor that an unlicensed person is allowed to have such responsibility, let alone the fact it doubles to cost of provision of service. There have been some quite serious incidents around the world with ground collisions - and interesting how thats handled when the individual responsible isn't covered under any regulation or license, where in the UK that individual is a fully licensed air traffic controller, qualified to perform both the air and gmc roles.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Not sure what the case is in the US, but these Apron "Controllers" in europe are not licensed personnel and don't work for the ANSP (ATC) so I find it quite an interesting factor that an unlicensed person is allowed to have such responsibility, let alone the fact it doubles to cost of provision of service. There have been some quite serious incidents around the world with ground collisions - and interesting how thats handled when the individual responsible isn't covered under any regulation or license, where in the UK that individual is a fully licensed air traffic controller, qualified to perform both the air and gmc roles.

 

It varies by airport, and the cost is actually probably cheaper over here. FAA Controllers get paid quite well (a top level controller at Dulles Tower gets paid $120,600 at a minimum, as of 2016). Controller contractors tend to be in smaller facilities or ramp towers where salaries are usually smaller. As an example, a ramp controller at IAD made about $70,000 back in 2014, but this was predicated on prior control experience (they're basically hiring former controllers who want a slower pace, or a retirement job, which is forced at 56, currently, whereas pilots are now 65).

 

The contracting companies - regardless of the facility - usually require some form of control experience before they'll hire you, so a lot of former military controllers or those with formal certified university training (where you can a Certified Tower Operator certification). Regardless of licensing, an airline/operator is not precluded from seeking compensation if aircraft are damaged due to a fault of ramp control. In order to win the contract, the company must prove that they are licensed, bonded, and insured. It's obviously a lot easier to control aircraft on an open ramp than on taxiways, and even more so than in the air (particularly approach positions).

 

I think most of the loose ramp control concept came from the concept of airlines building a lot of the facilities here in the States. JFK is a famous example, where each airline built its own terminal as part of an "airport city." This is no longer the case, but back then since each airline had its own part of the airport, it was managed by that airline. It's less the case now, but airlines do still manage their own gates. As an example, UAL manages its own gates at IAD, with the balance controlled by the airport operator (MWAA). All pushes on the main ramps are coordinated through MWAA, however. MWAA Ramp Controllers then get you from your gate to the movement area (at IAD, the North-South taxiways on either side of the ramp) and hand you off to FAA controllers.

 

Clear as mud? 

[JC75 22]

Yeah most of it is as clear as mud, as you say its made up of history and politics

 

The same principle and salary differences apply in Europe, but when you take into account that you still have two companies - so all the associated management and support lines to provide one service it results in a more expensive way overhaul to the cost of the actual service. If you take a major UK airports at night - there is one ATCO(obviously more on shift for breaks) providing the whole service due to low traffic numbers, so air,gmc etc  - where an equivalent european airport will have One ATCO doing air and One Apron controller regardless of how quiet it gets, taking into account need for breaks a watch likely be 3 ATCOS vs 3atcos and 3 apron controllers all being paid to cover a shift to move a handful of planes. Its one of the factors that much of europe not liberalised(although it supposed to have) - because if it did, this model would probably get applied by a competing ANSP and half the cost overnight wiped out and the incumbent ANSP wouldn't be able to compete due to union and procedures.

 

Tech such as follow the greens, and the like will evidently change this - along with Digital Air Traffic services (remote towers etc) as always the progress of this will either be rapid or slow, but will happen dependant upon the "Mud" and politics that have to be overcome first.