[jhb] Re: Not too hot
- From: "bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
- To: <jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:08:55 -0000
A very good point Kevin as it highlights the absolutely essential need for
clearances to be read back by the pilot (and ATC to listen to this) so that
errors are trapped.
Any clearance involving a height or heading should be repeated by the
aircraft so both parties are clear about what is going to happen.
bones
-----Original Message-----
From: jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of 175@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 27 January 2008 19:55
To: jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb] Re: Not too hot
Just online at Farnborough, delighted to see Jerry on the apron as I logged
on. Flightplan to EGNS (home). Winds calm, he was heading for runway 06.
He called up.
Herein I have to apologise, my performance was poor, I suggested a heading
from 06 which should have routed him direct to NORRY, his first waypoint.
Traffic was light but mostly using 27 at Heathrow.
Diamond 068 took off and turned on a heading which kept him out of EGLL
airspace but on a Northerly heading. I should have asked, but as I didn't
confirm any clearance, I watched as he climbed, still Northbound for another
10 miles, at which point I wondered if my 300 degrees had been heard as 360
degrees and asked.
Jerry accepted "own navigation" and spent some time travelling West to
regain his original flightplan......Sorry.
This only serves to highlight the need for clearance so that both parties
are aware and can follow the flight progress. I'm still trying to avoid the
pregnant pauses over clearances as I look up the lesser used ISEC's and
Fix's...
Once again apologies offered.
G'day
Other related posts:
