Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

ATC 'orders'

A lot of interesting points here.

As Peter asked earlier, I’d be very interested to know which country this happened in. I understand the posters reluctance to identify the airport, but knowing the country would help put things into context.

I also think the controller grossely overstepped the mark and their own authority by demanding the pilot return to the airfield. A request to call them after landing would be appropriate, not a demand for them to return for landing.

lmsl1967 states that they always read the AIP entry, but then refer to a VFR manual. This is one reason I’d like to know the country for some context. Most countries publish all the info you need in the AIP. Germany and Switzerland generally publish a seperate VFR AIP which requires a subscription. If this isn’t what they are refering to, then I’ve no idea what a VFR manual is. Is it a local airport document or a CAA document?

There may be some learning points for the pilot here about preflight briefing from an unfamiliar airport. However I definately believe there are a lot of learning points for ATC. Usually when flying from an airport in controlled airspace, the departure route is agreed while still on the ground. (Often at larger airports it’s agreed twice—with cleraance delivery and then again with tower before take off clearance). The reason for this is so that a pilot isn’t having to mess about with charts and replanning while in the high workload phase just after takeoff. Something like “After departure, it will be a right turnout not below 500ft, towards XXX. From there to point X, not above XXXft”. Only after you do your read back, do you get the take off clearance. This avoids confusion in the air while workload is high.

ATC should never start barking instructions just after take off or just before landing. That’s a big No No, and a lesson ATC should learn. Quite a number of accidents have resulted from that in the past.

As a pilot, I really wouldn’t have much fear about this incident. If it’s taken further I think ATC has far more to learn from it. I’m aware of one incident (in Ireland) where a pilot messed up badly. ATC pointed out their problem, and the pilot asked for help. ATC ended up making a report to the IAA about the incident. On investigation the IAA stated that they were far more concerned about the controllers actions than the pilots. The pilot in this case, realised their mistake and asked for help, but ATC delayed help sufficiently to make a small incident into a much bigger one. The IAA was far more concerned that ATC had far more to learn and was less recognising of their own mistake, than the pilot. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case here too, but again the country that it happened in is likely to be relevant.

EIWT Weston, Ireland

Didn’t you get a confirm in any way ?

Usually with VFR flight plans there is no way of knowing whether it got anywhere. I sometimes phone the departure airport tower to check they have it.

The “ACKs” returned by some FP filing services are essentially fake; they might at most confirm it was successfully sent via the AFTN.

Eurocontrol IFR is different of course.

Some countries require PPR for entry (landing)

In Africa and the rest of the 3rd World, yes Not in “modern” Europe.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

dublinpilot wrote:

ATC should never start barking instructions just after take off

But you get this when you screw your departure

dublinpilot wrote:

or just before landing.

This is usual when you do the training and you need to get new departure route after low pass or touch&go.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

Always read the VFR-related AIP parts of the specific country and airport.
It would be a very good idea to tell the ATC before your departure of your intentions (via the radio or, even better, via phone).
Also it is good practice to familiarize yourself with the VFR reporting points and routes wherever you fly. I usually “fly” them in Google Earth and in a PC simulator to familiarize myself with the area and the logic behind these points.
If you are unable to aviate-navigate-communicate in the right order just tell them to standby.

LGMT (Mytilene, Lesvos, Greece), Greece

Aviathor wrote:

It is your right not to agree. You do however exagerate the number of pages it is necessary to read. Most of the important stuff is concentrated in a few sections of AIP ENR and AIP GEN. It is for example interesting to know that

Portugal has “VFR tunnels” to/from major airports
Some countries do not allow VFR night
France has heightened overflight minima for built-up areas
Some countries require PPR for entry (landing)
Some countries have specific transponder setting procedures
France requires a flight-plan and adherence to VFR routes for crossing to Corsica

And on that I fully agree on you, in this case it’s not on the AIP but on the so called VFR manual which is mentioned twice in a more than 200 pages. If you go though the VFR manual, yes you can find good information on it, but first you need to know it exists and then find it.

But the problem here is the way ATC dealt with an alleged lack of knowledge of the airspace and also on an increase workload on a critical moment of the flight that lead to some disorientation in order to follow their instructions or information requests. Why to request a ETA for a point more than 40 NM away at the same time it was obviously that the PIC was struggling to find and report a VRP that was not even on the FP?
While doing that I stopped flying and as consequence I crossed the altitude limit and deviated to the left. I know: aviate, navigate communicate, but at that moment I was already behind the aircraft.

I just had a phone conversation with the ATC chief who was not yet aware of the incident. It was a constructive approach from both sides. At the end I am from the opinion that both sides have things to learn from it (I know I do and I am a better pilot today that I was before it happens).

For now I do apologize but I am not going to disclose the country.

LPSR, Portugal

dublinpilot wrote:

I’ve no idea what a VFR manual is

Some countries have it. It is supposed to be smaller and more helpful than reading a complete AIP. However, I really doubt that you have to know something that is in there if it is not in the AIP.

Cyprus: http://vrfmanual.dca.mcw.gov.cy/body.html
Portugal: https://www.nav.pt/en/ais/vfr-manual/vfr-manual
Norway: http://www.luftfartstilsynet.no/caa_no/VFR_Guide_for_Norway_-_2017_Edition
Denmark: https://aim.naviair.dk/en

There are probably more…

Last Edited by Dimme at 24 Oct 11:13
ESME, ESMS

lmsl1967 wrote:

…and also on an increase workload on a critical moment of the flight that lead to some disorientation…

As we don’t know what country it was and which kind of airspace, I can only assume that those controllers do not usually deal with light aircraft flying low-level VFR inside their sector. Their usual “customers” are airliners with two pilots on board, one watching the autopilot do it’s job (often engaged after passing 400ft or so) and the other with nothing else to do but handling radio calls.

The magic ICAO phrase is “stand by” when overloaded by ATC. Which is what even airliners say most of the time when asked for estimates (like “at what level can you cross waypotint XYZZY?”). One needs to press some buttons first before being able to answer such a question and ATC have no problem waiting for a minute to get the answer.

EDDS - Stuttgart

But you get this when you screw your departure

This is usual when you do the training and you need to get new departure route after low pass or touch&go.

This should never be routine. It’s a very dangerous proceedure and there have been many accidents as a result. Of coure there may be time when it’s necessary, but it shouldn’t be done when not necessary. In the case in point, it wasn’t necessary. ATC should have done what is normally done in these circumstances….give the pilot a radar vector to fly and ask them to call the tower on landing.

Some countries have it. It is supposed to be smaller and more helpful than reading a complete AIP. However, I really doubt that you have to know something that is in there if it is not in the AIP.

Ok, if this is what the op is refering to, then it’s what is often called a VFR guide. As you say everning in it is in the AIP, and it would not be a normal part of a preflight briefing before flying to a new airport. Advice is about the country’s proceedures rather than the airport’s proceedures. I would not expect to find airport specific VFR routes in that, other than by way of an example. And if shown as an example, I wouldn’t expect that the guide would be republished every time the proceedure was updated. That’s what the AIP is for.

If this is what the OP was refering to not reading, then I think they were perfectly correct in reading the AIP entry for the airport and ignoring this.

EIWT Weston, Ireland

We dont know if a VFR or IFR flight plan was filed.

If it was IFR and was changed to VFR that should / would have been clear when the clearance was given on the ground. If an IFR FP is “converted” to a VFR FP on the ground then I would have thought carefully about accepting the revised plan (I know, that comes with experience). Maastricht is a very good example.

If it was always a VFR flight plan then again with experience you get to know that AT, especially in Europe, like to throw all sorts of VRPs at you. Have been there, personally I usually give the tower a call or failing that someone in despatch (the flying club or whatever) and get a quick brief on what to expect – it does make things so much less stressful, although easy to say with hindsight. You often end up finding AT does the same thing with pretty much everyone that of course if you are a local everyone knows, but if you are not, you may well struggle to find it whatever you read!

You get this sort of stuff en route and even in the UK. Brize are very good at gving you a transit via various reporting points and the Burnham transit under Heathrow always invoves at least three. In the Heathrow case plenty of pilots try it and cause everyone grief because they dont know where or what the points are.

Timothy is absolutely correct in that if you get caught out I would just ask for vectors with a fudge that my chart doesnt appear to have that VRP in question marked. It is really not that difficult for ATC.

I recall turning up years ago when the PFA or whatever it was, was at Cranfield. Hundreds of aircraft turned up this particular year in very murky weather, with ATC sending them off to all sorts of VRPs (Cranfield has a lot) for holding and joining in conditions that were hardly VMC. It was lucky there wasnt an accident.

dublinpilot wrote:

This should never be routine.

Exactly.

and even more to the point most controllers will know very quickly if the pilot is out of his depth. Immediately they do that is the moment to switch modes because the problem you are seeking to avert, will only become more likely if it is clear the pilot is now stressed. I suspect any good controller can tell within a few sentences whether the pilot is out of his depth, if not even sooner.

Couple of weeks ago I listened to a long exchange between Southampton and another pilot. This fella sounded as if he was 90 (nothing wrong with that), and totally old school if you know what I mean. My impression was of one perfectly in control of the aircraft and himself, not phased by anything, but totally out of his depth with ATs instructions. He certainly wasnt put out by AT having a go, but he definitely gave the impression he didnt know what he was doing. In a way I havent heard such an amusing exchange for a very long time, and Southampton eventually just gave up and then he disappeared off the frequency, leaving them trying to contact him for about another 30 minutes. I dont excuse his behaviour, but it was a perfect example where AT were entilted to think that the pilot wasnt phased by their interaction.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top