even the pros dont get it right

Olivier Demacon wrote:

Jay Somerset a écrit :

On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:51:43 +0100, "Chris" wrote:

Heard on London Airways today, NorthWest 43 called up at 'nine
thousand feet climbing to one five thousand feet' the controller ever
the diplomat asked 'northwest 43 can you confirm you are climbing to
Flight level 150?' 'Affirm came the reply'
mind you he was in some cruddy old DC-10 so he was probably busy
trying to keep it in the air.



In the US, flight levels start at 18,000. In Europe, they start much
lower.

This was just a terminology difference, and the controller was quite
correct
in ensuring there was no miscommunication. The pilot was merely
reporting
by reflex, forgetting for the moment that he was not within US airspace.

It happens.


I'd like to know what US pilots think of the FL rules in Europe,
starting at 3000 FT AGL, everyone uses standard 29.92" altimeter setting
(1013 mil). I guess the "logic" behind this is that everyone been on the
same altimeter setting, precise altitude separation is easier to get
than relying on everyone getting the proper "local setting" for the area
flown.

What do you think?

It seems that both systems work well. I can see some logic in the
European approach, but there are probably some drawbacks as well. I
can't think of any right at the moment though, I'll admit.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Europe,
starting at 3000 FT AGL, everyone uses standard 29.92" altimeter setting
(1013 mil). I guess the "logic" behind this is that everyone been on the
same altimeter setting, precise altitude separation is easier to get than
relying on everyone getting the proper "local setting" for the area
flown.

What do you think?

It seems that both systems work well. I can see some logic in the
European approach, but there are probably some drawbacks as well. I can't
think of any right at the moment though, I'll admit.

Matt

The one advantage is that once through the transition altitude there is no
need to keep getting altimeter settings.

In the UK flying IFR is often done by non instrument rated pilots because it
relates only to the rules you fly by. In the case of IFR it is setting 1013
(29.92) and using the appropriate flight levels for the direction of flight.

VFR only pilots still have to maintain appropriate conditions and stay out
of class A airspace which can start as low as 2500ft msl. There is some
around Heathrow starting at the surface but you can get SVFR for that.

Olivier Demacon opined


I'd like to know what US pilots think of the FL rules in Europe,
starting at 3000 FT AGL, everyone uses standard 29.92" altimeter
setting (1013 mil). I guess the "logic" behind this is that everyone
been on the same altimeter setting, precise altitude separation is
easier to get than relying on everyone getting the proper "local
setting" for the area flown.

I suspect that there will be a lot more CFIT. Pressure (and temperature)
changes can change actual AGL by surprising amounts.

Now, I think that I'm in a low pressure area... Am I going to miss that
mountain I know is around here somewhere?


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

"Stefan" wrote in message news:d6asj8

Actually, yes, I am so hard. I expect from an ATP to know the rules of the
air he is flying in. I expect his employer to offer appropriate training.
I expect the pilot to prepare his flight.

Knowing the rules, with appropriate training, and prepared for the flight,
verbal slips will still occur. Having flown transports in *exactly* the
environment you described - [have you, Stefan? ] - , I would be willing to
guarantee a very high probability that what you heard was merely a slip of
the tongue. Happens all the time, and controllers on both sides of the
ocean are well cognizant of this. You ought to take a lead from the
controller's attitude. Bear in mind also that climbing to FL150 and
climbing to 15000 ft aren't all that different.

Let the NG know the first time *you* make a low grade error. Enquiring
minds.....

John Gaquin wrote:

Knowing the rules, with appropriate training, and prepared for the flight,
verbal slips will still occur.

Of course. And I've made mistakes myself which I'm glad nobody knows of.

I jumped at this thread when a poster or two pointed out that the pilot
was probably American, implying, as I understood (my interpretation),
that he is therefore excused to have "forgotten" that there were
different traffic rules in the airspace he flew in. All I wanted to
point is that this is no excuse. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

Bear in mind also that climbing to FL150 and
climbing to 15000 ft aren't all that different.

It may be the difference between an uneventful flight and a midair,
especially when climbing to one altitude involves crossing the other.
Climbing or descending beyond the cleared altitude is one of the more
frequent causes of near miss reports.

Stefan

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

Knowing the rules, with appropriate training, and prepared for the
flight, verbal slips will still occur.

Of course. And I've made mistakes myself which I'm glad nobody knows of.

I jumped at this thread when a poster or two pointed out that the pilot
was probably American, implying, as I understood (my interpretation), that
he is therefore excused to have "forgotten" that there were different
traffic rules in the airspace he flew in. All I wanted to point is that
this is no excuse. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

Bear in mind also that climbing to FL150 and climbing to 15000 ft aren't
all that different.

It may be the difference between an uneventful flight and a midair,
especially when climbing to one altitude involves crossing the other.
Climbing or descending beyond the cleared altitude is one of the more
frequent causes of near miss reports.

I would echo that. It is perfectly possible that being at 15000 instead of
FL150 would give you the height difference that would put you outside the
deviation limit.

However as the OP the point of the post was to demonstrate that pilots and
ATC work as a team, not as adversaries aiming to score points of each other.

For another thought on the matter lets just imagine there was an incident
and the tape was being played later. If ATC had not said what they did, the
pilots would have been left in the prime seat for any blame because they got
it wrong. Any excuse the blame the pilot would have been taken by those with
a reason to shift the blame.
ATC caught the issue and although it was minor, it was straighten out with
an "affirm" from the pilots. Therefore the original wrong call ceases to be
a factor.
I call that great teamwork.
For what its worth, the correct response was "affirm" not "affirmative".
Extra brownie points for that. The reason is to draw a clear distinction
from "negative".

If transmissions get clipped at the start of the word, then affirmative and
negative risk sounding the same.

"Stefan" wrote in message
...

Acutally, it makes a lot of sense if you consider the airspace structure
and air traffic rules of Europe.

Please explain.

Stefan wrote:

I jumped at this thread when a poster or two pointed out that the
pilot was probably American, implying, as I understood (my
interpretation), that he is therefore excused to have "forgotten" that
there were different traffic rules in the airspace he flew in. All I
wanted to point is that this is no excuse. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

The assumption was that the pilot was American based on the "NW43"
callsign and reference to a DC10. I agree that pilots should always
know the rules for the airspace they are flying in, above or under.

BTW, are you from Sweden or France?

BJ

I think they don't have mountains in Europe.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
I think they don't have mountains in Europe.

Is this sarcasm?

Why they don't have mountains in the UK (I thinkt he maximum
elevation in the UK is under 4500'), there are rather nice ones
on the continent.