Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Harry Sugden

atc training Initial climb in clearance

Recommended Posts

Harry Sugden

Would it be possible to advise controllers during their training, that if a pilot sounds like they might need the initial climb issued to them, that it be given in the clearance? Of course this might lead to some pilots who do check the chart being told it, and some who don't check the charts still busting it... but it's getting a bit tiring on London these days with the number of busts. It's VATSIM... chart reading isn't a particularly popular pass time, but of course this idea would require subjective interpretation of what a non-chart reader sounds like.

Open to other suggestions as to how we can address this problem... perhaps some way we can point pilots to charts better than we do now?

Share this post


Link to post
Oliver Gates

In real life, a lot of the controllers pass the information to the pilots on first contact anyway. For example, the TC Biggin controllers often say "squawk ident; maintain altitude 6000 feet upon reaching" on first contact with aircraft on Detling departures. This technique removes any ambiguity and overcomes the issue of pilots not knowing or forgetting the initial climb (even if they looked at the charts before departure). It might be slightly tedious for the controller, but it's better than a level bust. Obviously, it isn't mandatory, but it is reasonably commonplace; some controllers do this frequently.

I realise, however, that this does not solve the issue of level busts before pilots make contact with London Control, as it requires the pilot to be in contact with the controller at the time.

Edited by Oliver Gates

Share this post


Link to post
Nick Marinov
24 minutes ago, Oliver Gates said:

"squawk ident; maintain altitude 6000 feet upon reaching"

This ^

I always say this if I can't climb them above the initial climb to TC level or above, even if I'm on APP and not London

Share this post


Link to post
Trevor Hannant

Sometimes doesn’t matter if you tell them or not - have had it on a few positions where levels are given as part of the clearance where they just go for cruise level regardless. 

No magic wand I’m afraid...

Share this post


Link to post
Harry Sugden
4 hours ago, Oliver Gates said:

I realise, however, that this does not solve the issue of level busts before pilots make contact with London Control, as it requires the pilot to be in contact with the controller at the time.

Yeah this tends to be the issue - as the large majority of time on VATSIM I'm able to at least give a 1000ft climb (which I'll always aim to do for efficiency!).

4 hours ago, Oliver Gates said:

"squawk ident; maintain altitude 6000 feet upon reaching"

Not something I have really done, or needed to do, (because of the above) - but yes another good point!

Share this post


Link to post
Oliver Parker

The amount of pilots that don't give any care to initial climbs is staggering. 

This is something which can be solved by educating new pilots.

Said it before, still nothing has been done, there needs to be a test before people can just connect and fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Phillip Speer

I must admit I do with LL/DET departures do as above (which I have since expanded to other departures when  want them to level off/not issue a further climb initially). Mainly to stop requesting climb early as if a few OCK arrivals, may be level for a while before climbing and I find it works quite well (will be an issue with the Kk IMVUR/easterly SAM/KENET as often passed 3000ft before making contact.

Phillip

Share this post


Link to post
Harry Sugden
2 hours ago, Phillip Speer said:

will be an issue with the Kk IMVUR/easterly SAM/KENET as often passed 3000ft before making contact

This is true! Far more likely for busts of 3000ft! That said, I do quite often get late callers from Manchester managing to bust 5000ft - and it's the same regardless of the SID! 😡

I do tend to go for the "for future reference, the initial climb on that SID is X000 feet" if someone does bust - maybe I should change this to a quick alias explaining this, and pointing to charts.

Share this post


Link to post
Adam Farquharson
On ‎22‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 11:57, Oliver Parker said:

Said it before, still nothing has been done, there needs to be a test before people can just connect and fly.

A moodle exam would be perfect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Oliver Parker
On 23/09/2018 at 02:51, Harry Sugden said:

I do tend to go for the "for future reference, the initial climb on that SID is X000 feet" if someone does bust - maybe I should change this to a quick alias explaining this, and pointing to charts.

.bust

'You are a bad pilot, you can't read a chart and selfishly cause conflicts with other pilots. You will continue at 6000ft for the remainder of your time in the London FIR.'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Harry Sugden

I don’t think I’ve ever seen this as BAD as tonight... how hard can it be when ALL the SIDs from Manchester are 5000ft? 😥😂

When do we give up eh

Share this post


Link to post
Stuart Duncan
32 minutes ago, Harry Sugden said:

I don’t think I’ve ever seen this as BAD as tonight... how hard can it be when ALL the SIDs from Manchester are 5000ft? 😥😂

When do we give up eh

To be fair Harry, I didn't admire your predicament on LON_N this evening, but, if you'd quit [auto-mod: lovely language]ing on freq, you'd have gained about 50% extra RT time .

#JustSayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Harry Sugden

I guess I was just having to have a bit of fun at the fact we were being launched continuous Brum departures at what, 1 a minute? Don’t know whether this was intentional but wasn’t much opportunity to control really... certainly too much work for one controller!

Anyway, got better and had a great session once all the EFRO stuff had gone - thanks to the KBOS-EHAM traffic for what became a lovely controlling session 👌🏻

Share this post


Link to post
Stuart Duncan

Continuous Brum, and Manchester, departures are common for this event every year. If you can't handle the status quo, don't jump in. Simples.

Yes, we as APP/CTR controllers wish that every pilot could fly a SID verbatim, but alas, it will never happen. I've resigned to pointing out errors on an individual basis. Sometimes, some pilots' abilities vastly outweigh their experience, which brings a welcome change.

 

Point being, there are times and places to wax lyrical. I do it myself. Everyone does (those that claim not to are liars). But, tonight, during a busy event, was not one of them.

 

Glad you've enjoyed yourself in the end. That's what it's all about, eh?

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Similar Content

    • Callum McLoughlin
      By Callum McLoughlin
      Gents
      In respect of the below:
      If an S2 is good enough to control Approach during CTP, they should be upgraded to S3! That is not a disparaging comment towards any of the SAV chaps, the way - but a suggestion that these guys genuinely need an upgrade!! This equally applies to all solo validation holders controlling in their "acting S2/S3/C1" capacity.
      Would this be actioned after CTP, as what better exam could there be?
      I hope that VATUK finds a pragmatic way forward with this as it would be a fantastic coup.
    • Andy Ford
      By Andy Ford
      It's now been four months since we released the new VATSIM UK approach radar training syllabus. Since release, we've seen an increase in the number of exams coming through the system, still with a strong pass rate.
      Now that we've all had time to work with the new syllabus, it's time to look towards the next iteration and improvement. Therefore, we'd like to invite mentors and students to comment on how they're finding the syllabus and any feedback that they may have.
      With any additions or improvements, we are hoping to retain the current paradigm of "if it's theory, then it's self-taught". If there's something that you've noticed students lacking with regards to theory because we haven't told them what they need and where to find it, please say and this can be added. This iteration will be adding the "Attitude To Self-learning" section that we have already added to the updated Tower syllabus.
      On the practical side, we're interested to know if there's anything that you would want to see added to the syllabus or integrated into an existing criterion. Or perhaps there's something that could be made clearer to aid understanding?
      Once we've collected all the feedback, we'll update the syllabus and release the improved version.
    • Andy Ford
      By Andy Ford
      Recently we've been having a very long discussion regarding how we handle controller feedback and how our processes can be improved, as not everyone feels that we do feedback in the best way - especially when that feedback isn't positive. From these discussions we've come up with a possible idea for a new system for handling ATC feedback and would like the input of the membership before we take anything further.
      Current System
      The current system for ATC Feedback is a manual process involving delegated members of the ATC Training Department. All feedback submitted is anonymous (members of staff have to explicitly click a button in order to view who submitted the feedback, which is logged). When feedback comes in, a member of staff reviews the feedback. If the feedback is positive, we pass it on to the member - without revealing the identity of the submitter (so some redaction may take place). If the feedback is negative, we generally do not pass it on to the member every time (except in cases where trends are developing), but use it to inform areas for improvement within the department.
      Some members that we have spoken to do not like this system, as they want to know everything that people have to say about them and on the flip side want to make sure that their feedback is going to the member in question, not just sitting in a database waiting to be processed.
      Proposed System
      The proposed system would change how we handle feedback, to the following:
      Members submitting feedback may indicate whether or not they want feedback to be sent to the controller in question or just the ATC Training staff. In choosing to send feedback to the member, they acknowledge that everything they say will be made visible and thus should take care not to say anything that would identify them if they wish to remain anonymous. By default, members will automatically receive all feedback (positive or negative) when it is submitted unless they choose to opt out. This will be available, as it is now, through the front-end of Core. All feedback is visible to delegated members of ATC Training Staff. Through this proposed to system, we hope to achieve the following things:
      Reduced admin time for ATC Training staff - who will then only have to process feedback addressed directly to us. Members who want to know what is being said about them can find out straight away, so that they can see how they are doing. Members submitting feedback can be sure that their feedback is reaching the intended individual, not gathering dust in a database row somewhere. For this purpose, we have created a poll that asks the following question: "Given the current and proposed systems of handling Controller Feedback, which would you prefer?". We would encourage all members to vote in this poll so that we can gauge how popular a change from our current system is with the membership. Moreover, if anybody has any comments or suggestions, please reply to this post - the proposed system is up for discussion and change.
      Thanks!
    • Andy Ford
      By Andy Ford
      Hi Folks,
      To conclude the epic quest that has been restructuring our training syllabus, we would like to present the first draft of the new C1 syllabus for comments.
      As with S2 and S3, the purposes here are as follows:
      To clearly define what skills a student must demonstrate in order to progress towards the C1 rating and how their performance corresponds to different gradings A guide to mentors to reduce mentor interpretation in grading students Designating a number of competencies as "self-taught", removing the theory aspect (and namely repeating the same thing multiple times over) from sessions. The draft syllabus may be found here:
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sUM7WnK5n4YRO4AdYSZoGTsRfGKcJBgAh6jHmjqm7HQ/edit?usp=sharing
      Any feedback and comments are most welcome. Once people have had a chance to comment, we'll begin the process of finalising this and putting it live.
      Thanks!
    • Andy Ford
      By Andy Ford
      Hi Folks,
      Following the redesign of the S2 syllabus, we are now in a position to do this for S3 with the same aims as before.
      As such, I am pleased to present the first draft of the S3 syllabus for review. It would be great if members could have a read though and let us know any feedback that they have on this forum thread. Once everyone's had an opportunity to read and comment, we'll make any amendments and look towards implementation including updating the progress sheets.
      Links:
      Syllabus Flow Diagram Thanks!
      Andy
×
×
  • Create New...